Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKERin the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL

Lords Amendment considered and agreed to.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

Rural Electricity Supplies

Mr. Kimball: asked the Paymaster-General if he will give a general direction to the Central Electricity Authority to speed up the development of electrical schemes in rural areas.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The boards are well ahead of their programme for rural electrification and no such direction is needed.

Mr. Kimball: Whilst congratulating my right hon. Friend on the progress that has been made, may I ask him if he is aware that recently there have been many complaints from farmers in my division that they are unable to get labour for some of the outlying farms, that they get no priority for electricity unless they intend to install grain dryers, that many small farmers on the wolds do not want grain dryers and cannot afford them, but that they would like priority for their milking equipment?

Mr. Maudling: I am aware of these difficulties and so are the electricity boards. In fact, in the East Midlands and Yorkshire areas, which are the areas concerned, about 85 per cent. of the farms have been connected compared with the

national average of 69 per cent. That shows that the boards are well aware of the problem, but I can understand that in individual cases difficulty remains.

Collieries (Undistributed Stocks)

Mr. Owen: asked the Paymaster-General how much coal was undistributed at collieries at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Maudling: At 4th May, 1957, 2·7 million tons with a further 1·5 million at opencast sites.

Mr. Owen: Is the Minister aware that there is an increasing accumulation of coal in colliery sidings, particularly in a section of a Northumberland coal field, and that this is causing some concern to the mine workers of the area? Is it not possible to produce some additional incentive for consumers during the summer months so that this increasing quantity of coal can be removed?

Mr. Maudling: This is really a matter of administration for the board in which I should not intervene. I know that the board is aware of the difficulties that may arise if undistributed stocks become excessive, but so far I have not heard of congestion at the pithead. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular cases in mind and will send me details of them, I will convey the facts to the board.

Mr. Robens: Is it not the case that the problem is with smalls? Would not the Paymaster-General consider permitting an even greater amount for export in order to relieve the collieries of the large accumulated stocks they now have?

Mr. Maudling: There is a later Question on the Order Paper about exports. I do not think it is a matter of "permitting" exports. We should he glad to see increased exports of small coal.

Fuel Oil (Emergency Surcharge)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Paymaster-General what progress he has made in his discussions with the oil companies about removing their surcharge on petrol.

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Paymaster-General what has been the result of his consultation with the oil companies in regard to the emergency surcharge.

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Members will have seen from the announcements of the oil companies that, following consultations with my noble Friend, they have taken off the remainder of the emergency surcharge. My noble Friend has now decided that it is no longer necessary to ask them to consult him before making changes in prices.

Mr. Lipton: Is not the Paymaster-General aware that petrol is still 2—½d. a gallon more than pre-Suez, which means higher fares and higher prices? Why did the previous Minister of Fuel and Power tell the House on 10th December last:
I have every reason to believe that when the emergency is over the emergency surcharge will disappear."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1956; Vol. 562, c. 16.]
Was the Minister tricked by the oil companies, and is that why he misled the House and the public?

Mr. Maudling: I think the hon. Gentleman has failed to distinguish between the cost of carrying oil and the cost of buying it from the Gulf. The price has risen by 2½d. a gallon, but this country has no control over Gulf prices, which must continue to be reflected in the price to the consumer.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the great variations in the statements made from time to time as to the amount by which petrol is now higher in price than it was at the onset of the Suez crisis, namely, last July, can my right hon. Friend say whether the 2½d. referred to in the last supplementary is correct or not?

Mr. Maudling: My impression is that the higher elements in the price of petrol since before Suez are the increase in the basic price at the Gulf of about l½d. a gallon and the increased cost of 1d. a gallon in the retailers' margin, agreed between the oil companies and the retailers, which are not a responsibility of the Government.

Mr. Lewis: While appreciating that the price may or may not have gone up—because we hear different stories about that—may I ask whether it is not a fact that these companies are turning over millions of pounds of profits? Surely it would be far better if the Minister were to advise them to cut prices, if need be out of their profits, and so help to reduce the cost of living? Why should they keep

on making these millions of pounds of profits?

Mr. Maudling: To pay for the development of their industry.

Mr. Robens: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer two questions? Did I understand him to say that in future the oil companies will not consult the Ministry when they wish to change prices? If so, can we look forward now to some competition amongst the oil companies and a difference in oil and petrol prices to the consumers? Secondly, will he say by how much now petrol has increased since the pre-Suez situation?

Mr. Maudling: I thought I said earlier that the higher price of petrol of about 2½d. a gallon since the pre-Suez crisis was the effect of the increased price the companies have to pay to producers, plus the retailers' margin. As to the right hon. Gentleman's other question, I think that if he will look into the oil business a little more closely he will find that it is in fact a very competitive industry.

Coal Allocation Scheme

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Paymaster-General if he will now free the supply of household coal from the present system of allocation.

Mr. Holt: asked the Paymaster-General when he anticipates that there will be sufficient house coal available to free it from the allocation system.

Mr. Maudling: I cannot add to the Answer I gave on 6th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper).

Sir F. Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, so far as East Anglia is concerned, this allocation is based on the assumption that the climate of Norfolk is the same as that of Bournemouth, which, climatically at least, is not correct, and that as long as the existing allocation continues East Anglia will suffer from a sense of injustice?

Mr. Maudling: I will certainly consider the comparative statistics of East Anglia and Bournemouth, but, of course, it is not possible in these allocation schemes to produce exact differentials for every area. Our claim is to remove the whole scheme as soon as possible, but I


am afraid that in present circumstances, with the continuing need to import large coal, it is not possible to foresee the end of allocation.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS

Technical Assistance (Staff)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will propose to the United Nations the establishment of an international pool of experienced administrators from whom newly independent Governments could select personnel for employment in technical duties and to train citizens of the territories concerned in such duties.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ian Harvey): No, Sir. The attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards a civil service under international responsibility was made clear by my noble Friend the present Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in a speech to the 22nd Session of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations in July, 1956, a copy of which is available in the Library. On the other hand, Her Majesty's Government wholeheartedly support the supply of experts and advisers to States requesting their services, under the Technical Assistance programmes of the United Nations and the Specialised Agencies.
As regards the last part of the Question, the United Nations, the Specialised Agencies and the Extended Technical Assistance Programme allocated in 1956$1·4 million for the training in public administration of national civil servants and other suitably sponsored and qualified persons.

Mr. Brockway: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that very full reply, may I ask whether he will urge upon his right hon. and learned Friend some reconsideration of this position for two reasons: first, that if there is an international panel Governments may be able to select from it, without any feeling that there are national political reasons behind it, and secondly, that it will be a big, positive, constructive step towards peace?

Mr. Harvey: I appreciate the points which the hon. Gentleman has put, but there have been no great demands in that

direction by the newly-formed Governments concerned, and so I do not think there is any great need to bring these points to my right hon. and learned Friend's notice.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Is the Joint Under-Secretary of State aware that we remember with regret the speech made in Geneva by the noble Lord a little while ago, and will he represent to the Foreign Secretary that Technical Assistance is really a major British interest, and that the lack of a properly trained, long-term service, pool of experts is a major difficulty? Will he support the proposals made by the Secretary-General under this head?

Mr. Harvey: I do not think that what I have said contradicts in any way what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It is merely a question of a primary organisation. As I have indicated in my Answer, there is no great demand for this central organisation.

Economic Development

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the attitude expressed by the United Kingdom delegate on the United Nations Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East to the statement of the International Confederation of Free Trades Unions in which they call for the early establishment of a Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development.

Mr. Ian Harvey: There was no discussion in the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East of the statement made by the International Confederation.

Mr. Brockway: Can we expect some change in the attitude of the British Government when the United Nations Assembly meets next autumn? Have not thirty-two Governments now endorsed this scheme, and could it not be put into operation if the British and American Governments agreed?

Mr. Harvey: I cannot at this point add to the very full statement which we have already made, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are reports expected on this subject at the present time at the United Nations. Obviously, when those reports become available we shall study them.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will Her Majesty's representatives in the Economic and Social Council in Geneva take a more constructive attitude about this than they have done in the past?

Mr. Harvey: I have no doubt they will examine these reports as and when they come forth.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT

British Property

Major Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the property of Israeli nationals in Egypt has now been desequestrated; and what steps he is now taking to ensure that the property of British nationals is returned to them or compensation paid.

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that the property of Israeli nationals in Egypt has now been de-sequestrated, to what extent discussions are now taking place to lead to similar action in regard to the property of British nationals.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Commander Allan Noble): I have seen these reports, but upon inquiry it seems that these measures have the effect of removing from sequestration the property of persons arrested or placed under supervision by the Egyptian police, and I understand that this affected Jews of nationalities other than British and French, including Egyptian Jews, but it did not relate to citizens of Israel.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated in the House on 13th May, discussions are to be held with the Egyptians in a neutral capital. The possibility will then be explored of securing satisfactory arrangements to cover the financial claims which we have against Egypt.

Major Wall: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether he has any information about the private property of British subjects in Egypt? Has it been sold or otherwise disposed of?

Commander Noble: I am afraid I have no further information on that, but, as the Prime Minister has said, all this will be borne in mind.

Sir F. Medlicott: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind in approaching this matter that the best results are likely to be obtained by using the utmost diplomatic skill and business acumen rather than by more doubtful methods?

Suez Canal

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct the British representatives at the meeting of the Security Council on Suez to support the French request that the Egyptian Government should be required to conform to the six principles laid down in October, 1956.

Commander Noble: Her Majesty's Government certainly support the view that the Egyptian Government should be required to conform to the six principles of the Security Council agreed last October. We shall continue our efforts to this end. The Security Council is meeting today and we await the outcome.

Mr. Fletcher: Will the hon. Gentleman not only emphasise the purely provisional nature of the present Canal arrangement, but use Her Majesty's Government's influence at the United Nations to do something to restore confidence in that organ as one capable of ensuring respect for international rights?

Commander Noble: We will certainly do everything we can.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) in view of the Security Council Resolution of 13th October, 1956, what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the sending of a ship by the Government of Israel through the Suez Canal as a peaceful test;
(2) whether he will instruct his representative at the United Nations to propose that the Security Council should implement their Resolution of 13th October, 1956, urging full freedom of navigation through the Suez Canal by calling on the Government of Egypt not to interfere with Israeli shipping passing peacefully through the Suez Canal.

Commander Noble: As my right hon. and learned Friend said on 13th May, we believe Israeli ships share the rights of all


countries to freedom of passage of the Canal. And as the Prime Minister said during the debate on 15th May, we shall do all we can, through the United Nations and with our friends, to see that these rights are assured.
We stand by the Resolution of September, 1951, and by the six principles of October, 1956. The Security Council is discussing the Canal question today. Whether there should be a peaceful test voyage by an Israeli ship must be a matter for the Israeli Government.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the official statement made in Cairo last week by a Government of Egypt spokesman to the effect that they would stop any Israeli ship seeking to pass through the Canal, would the Minister of State at least make it clear that, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, any interference by the Government of Egypt with an Israeli ship on a peaceful occasion would be contrary to all international law?

Commander Noble: I think that my original Answer made that quite clear. Should the situation which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just mentioned arise, it would be a matter for Israel whether to take the question to the United Nations or the International Court.

Mr. Nicholson: Will my hon. and gallant Friend think again? In view of the terrible results that might ensue from any untoward circumstance arising out of a test voyage, will he revise his view that this concerns the Israeli Government alone? It concerns the whole world. Will he attempt to prevent the Israeli Government acting single-handed?

Commander Noble: I think I made the position of Her Majesty's Government quite clear. The actual decision to take a ship through is for the Israeli Government, but thereafter it would be a matter for the United Nations or the International Court.

Mr. H. Morrison: In those circumstances, cannot the Minister of State make it clear that if the Israeli Government should exercise its undoubted right to take a ship through the Suez Canal, that would receive the sympathetic support of Her Majesty's Government? Cannot he make it clear now that if Israel should do that we would say that Israel was

within her rights and that we would, at any rate, give her moral support in so doing and support in the United Nations?

Commander Noble: Yes, Sir. I think Her Majesty's Government have always made that quite clear.

U.S.S.R. (TSARIST DEBTS)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when last our Ambassador in Moscow discussed the question of repayment of Tsarist Russian debts to this country; what were the results of such discussions; and what he now proposes to do.

Mr. Ian Harvey: In spite of repeated representations, the most recent of which was made last year, the Soviet Government have not yet agreed to enter into negotiations for a general settlement of outstanding British claims against the Soviet Union. We shall lose no suitable opportunity of pressing this question.

Mr. Teeling: Does my hon. Friend not think it strange that whereas the Russian Government today are known to pay their debts promptly and probably better than most other countries in the world they do not seem to want to do so in the case of debts incurred only shortly before the Revolution for the building of railways and other developments in Russia, from which they are benefiting today? The sum is very small, but large numbers of people in this country are still suffering from not having received any interest on the money, and certainly no return of their capital, over these many years.

Mr. Harvey: Her Majesty's Government do appreciate the position of those people, and we shall make every effort to get this matter settled, but it is not quite so simple as my hon. Friend would suggest.

Mr. G. Jeger: Is the hon. Gentleman well versed in history, and would he remember the days when those loans were first made, and that the Social Democrats of Tsarist Russia issued a warning to the world that if ever the Tsarist régime passed away the debts would as well and that they would refuse to recognise them?

Mr. Harvey: I am reasonably well versed in history, but I think I should be out of order if I were to answer that today.

Mr. Jeger: Try. It would not be out of order.

UNITED STATES (VISAS)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he is taking to ensure that British citizens resident in the United Kingdom who visit the United States of America have as easy facilities in the matter of passport visas and entry permits as United States citizens visiting the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ian Harvey: None, Sir. My right hon. and learned Friend does not consider that any useful purpose would be served by making representations to the United States Government on this subject. Since Her Majesty's Government abolished visas for United States citizens in 1948, the United States Government have abolished visa fees and progressively extended the validity of visas for United Kingdom citizens resident in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Hurd: Will my hon. Friend ask the Foreign Secretary to look at this again, because there is a good deal of feeling about it? There would be very wide support on this side of the Atlantic if the Foreign Secretary pressed for complete reciprocity between the United States and ourselves in the matter of passport conditions and visa charges. There is not complete reciprocity today.

Mr. Harvey: I appreciate the point that there is not complete reciprocity, but these matters are for the internal arrangements of the Governments themselves; and the adjustments made have to a large extent met many of the criticisms made up to now.

Mr. Crossman: Is it not a fact that since we abolished visas for the Americans they have introduced fingerprinting for us? Is that complete reciprocity?

Mr. Harvey: The timing in the hon. Member's suggestion is not quite correct, but I entirely appreciate the position about fingerprinting.

Mr. Ridsdale: Will my hon. Friend not agree that the greatest barrier to

travel to the United States is the non-availability of dollars? Will he have conversations with the American Government, or see that his right hon. and learned Friend does, to see whether tourist dollars could not be made available at a reasonably cheap rate so that, for example, tourists would not have to pay £2 for a steak in New York?

Mr. Harvey: My hon. Friend's proposal is attractive, but at the same time has nothing to do with passports.

BRITISH REGISTERED SHIPS (REFUGEES)

Mr. Reeves: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of refugees living on British registered ships; the average length of time of their sojourn there; and what steps he is taking in the United Nations or elsewhere to reduce or eliminate entirely the number of such people on British ships.

Mr. Ian Harvey: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 27th February by my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary to a Question tabled by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Moss). In view of the terms of that reply, I do not consider that any action in the United Nations or elsewhere is called for.

Mr. Reeves: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present Nobel Prize-winner stated recently that there are literally thousands of seamen in this unfortunate position? Could not something be done, because they are virtually prisoners on board ship? Is it not an outrage that such a thing should occur?

Mr. Harvey: I have not actually seen that statement, but my information is not quite to that effect. In any case, the matter is one for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

SUEZ CANAL USERS' ASSOCIATION

Mr. Peyton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he intends to make to the United States Government concerning the future of the Suez Canal Users' Association.

Commander Noble: Any such proposals would appropriately be put to the


Suez Canal Users' Association Council, which reviews from time to time the work of the Association. As the Prime Minister said on 13th May, the Association will be a valuable instrument, which the user countries intend to keep alive. It provides a means for the major user Governments to consult and concert policies in the coming months, when they will be closely watching the operation of the Canal.

Mr. Peyton: Does not my right hon. Friend feel that it would be appropriate to remind the American Government or the Secretary of State—who, after all, was largely responsible for the formation of the Association—of the existence of the Association and also of his responsibility to make the Association an effective one?

Commander Noble: The United States Government are, of course, well aware of the existence of the Association and agree that it should be kept alive.

MIDDLE EAST (ANGLO-AMERICAN POLICY)

Mr. Peyton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he now proposes to take to concert a common policy in the Middle East between this country and the United States of America.

Commander Noble: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated on 1st April, we and the United States have identical aims in this area even if there are at times divergencies on how to achieve them. The process of close consultation, which is the best method of ensuring common policies, is continuous.

Mr. Peyton: Now that the Suez controversy has been well argued into the ground, does my right hon. and gallant Friend not feel that in looking to the future there is a very grave danger that Western policies will continue to be frustrated and thwarted by their own divided counsels? Will he not suggest to the American Government that in the Middle East, to start with, there should be some attempt at official level to concert in detail a policy for this extremely vital part of the world?

Commander Noble: I am afraid that I cannot agree with my hon. Friend on the first part of his supplementary. As

he knows, these matters were very fully discussed at Bermuda and since then there has been close and continuous consultation.

Mr. Younger: While accepting the value of consultation with the United States in these matters, will Her Maejsty's Government be careful not to begin regarding the Middle East as an Anglo-American preserve? Will they consider having co-operation not merely with the United States, but on a very much wider basis, notably with countries in Asia, probably under the leadership of India?

Commander Noble: We shall certainly consult about the Middle East with those countries we think oppropriate.

Major Wall: Is it not a fact that American public opinion seems to be far ahead of the opinion in the American Administration on this subject?

SPAIN (GIBRALTAR FRONTIER RESTRICTIONS)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received to his note of 16th April to the Spanish Government on the subject of Gibraltar frontier restrictions.

Mr. Ian Harvey: No reply has yet been received. At the same time, no further incidents have been reported on the frontier.

Mr. Jeger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his information from the frontier regularly varies from the information I get, and that my latest information, which is only two days old, is that the situation on the Gibraltar frontier is exactly the same as it was when we discussed this matter and which caused the Government to send a note to the Spanish Government? Is he determined to allow both ends of the Mediterranean to get into the same mess?

Mr. Harvey: If the hon. Gentleman would care to discuss his information with me, I should be very glad to take appropriate action, but I can only say that the information available to me at present is that there have been no further incidents on this frontier since our debate in the House before Easter.

EAST-WEST TRADE

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the failure of the China Committee of the Consultative Group to reach agreement, he will now reduce the China embargo list to the level of that applying to the Soviet bloc.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the stalemate in the China Committee of the Consultative Group, Her Majesty's Government will now exercise their right to act in the matter of China trade contracts according to the economic interests of this country.

Commander Noble: A meeting of the China Committee of the Consultative Group took place last Friday in Paris. Agreement was not reached, Her Majesty's Government are now considering what action they should take, and a further meeting of the Committee is being held this week.

Mr. Lewis: But Her Majesty's Government are always considering it. Is it not time that they did something, because this Committee will obviously not reach agreement? Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman explain why he told my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) last Thursday that the Government would not agree to make a statement in the House before reaching any agreement? Will he reconsider that and promise that he will make a statement before agreeing to anything which the American Government may put forward?

Commander Noble: I realise that hon. Members feel strongly on this subject. Her Majesty's Government, of course, realise that this is a problem which cannot go unresolved, but it is right that we should attend this meeting this week, and if there is no agreement, we will, of course, have to reconsider the whole position. The House will be told at the appropriate time.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Is the Minister aware that the feeling that there is something ludicrous about discrimination in trade between Communist China and Communist Russia is by no means confined to one side of the House?

Commander Noble: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that the reply of the President of the Board of Trade to me last Thursday showed that the Chinese surplus with the sterling area was now about £70 million? What will he do about employing this amount of money? Is he to "footer" about with this problem until this surplus is turned into other currencies which take the matter altogether out of our hands?

Commander Noble: I think that my last answer makes it quite clear that we shall not "footer" about with this problem and that we will consider the position and make a statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the number of procedures and control lists now governing Britain's exports to China and the Soviet bloc, he will now reconsider the advisability of publishing a White Paper to make the relevant information available to British exporters.

Commander Noble: No, Sir. The details of the procedures governing exports to China and the Soviet bloc are confidential. As far as the lists are concerned the items under control for the Soviet bloc were published in the Board of Trade journal of 16th October, 1954, and those under embargo for China were published in the Board of Trade journal of 23rd June, 1951. As I have just said, discussions are continuing in the China Committee on the scope of the China trade controls.

Mr. Allaun: But if a White Paper were published, would not it show that our export policy is no longer being decided in the British Parliament but in the American Congress, and are not Parliament as well as the exporters themselves entitled to the whole of the story?

Commander Noble: It is really the principles that are confidential. I do not think that exporters, if they go to the Board of Trade, have any doubt about the methods they should adopt. if those lists are changed they will be re-published.

Mr. Bevan: Whatever may be the outcome of the discussions now taking place in Paris, surely it will be necessary to inform the House of the situation which will have arisen? Therefore, I should


have thought an application for a White Paper on the subject, including what may happen and the contemporary lists, was perfectly reasonable.

Commander Noble: I will certainly bring that point to the notice of my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that, within the limits of the strategic embargo, those who are trying to promote the exports of this country find the present differentiation between China and Russia both illogical and irritating?

Commander Noble: Yes, that is really why we wish to get this matter resolved as soon as possible.

Mr. Dugdale: Is it correct to say that the United States representative on the China Committee is the only representative who is against the liberalisation of trade with China?

Commander Noble: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, these meetings are confidential.

GULF OF AQABA

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to a reference to the Court of International Justice for its ruling as to whether the Gulf of Aqaba is an international waterway.

Commander Noble: My right hon. and learned Friend certainly has in mind the possibility mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member. But, as my right hon. and learned Friend told him on 17th April, British ships are in fact exercising the right of free and innocent passage through the Gulf of Aqaba. In general, the present position seems reasonably satisfactory.

Mr. Henderson: Would the Minister of State make it clear whether British ships passing through the Gulf of Aqaba have every right to go to the Port of Elath if they so desire?

Commander Noble: I think we have always made that quite clear. I myself referred to it in the General Assembly earlier this year.

Mr. Bevan: Is not it a fact that where rights of passage are normally exercised by maritime nations, if a riparian nation wishes to interfere with that right that nation itself should go to the International Court; it should not be the obligation of some nation interfered with to assert its rights, but for the interferer to assert the right to interfere?

Commander Noble: I think that from the British point of view the situation is reasonably satisfactory. We have declared that we look upon this as an international waterway and our ships are using it.

Captain Pilkington: Is not it now up to the United Nations to say that all ships shall have free access to both these waterways?

Commander Noble: Yes, Sir.

WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION (DEFENCE COMMITTEE REPORT)

Mr. Younger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to remedy the state of affairs revealed by the report of the Defence Committee of Western European Union, especially the failure to secure adequate standardisation of equipment, mobilisation plans or logistic systems of the various national contingents.

Mr. Ian Harvey: The recommendation and Report of the Defence Committee have been received by the Western European Union Council today. They will be considered by the Permanent Representatives shortly.
It would not be proper for me to anticipate their conclusions.
Standardisation of equipment is not a field in which spectacular results can be quickly achieved, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that good progress is already being made as to standardisation in the appropriate organs of the Western European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, namely the Standing Armaments Committee and the Defence Production Committee.

Mr. Younger: While welcoming that statement from the Joint Under-Secretary, may I ask him whether he is aware that what is alleged in this Report is not a


failure to make spectacular progress but virtually an allegation of a failure to make any progress at all? As this is spelled out in black and white and has been before a Parliamentary Assembly in Europe, with no answer of any kind being given by any Minister of the member States, it had a very damaging effect. Is not it extremely important, if these things are true, that they should be put right and that, if they are not true, they should be denied?

Mr. Harvey: One readily accepts the views of the right hon. Gentleman on the second part of his Question, but I think, at the same time, that possibly the picture he has painted is rather more black than it actually is. As I have stated, this is being considered, and it would be improper at this stage to anticipate any conclusion.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Government give us a White Paper on the result of this discussion, so that we can see where we are?

Mr. Harvey: I do not think it is necessary to call for a White Paper, but certainly a statement will be issued in due course and when the proper proceedings have taken place.

Mr. Robens: Will the hon. Gentleman say how it is possible to have something more black than black?

Mr. Nicholson: Can my hon. Friend say whether his right hon. and learned Friend has read this Report, because it is so shocking that, if it is true, it is plain that the defence of Western Europe is nothing more or less than a mockery? It is a very serious Report which deeply shocked all members of the Western European Union Assembly.

Mr. Harvey: I admit that the Report does contain some very disturbing details. My right hon. and learned Friend has, of course, read it; but it is being considered at the moment and it would be premature for any statement to be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Aircraft Industry, Coventry

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that, as a result of the change in Government defence policy, Armstrong Siddeley Motors,

Coventry, have been told by his Department to reduce their proposed development vote by 45 per cent.; and what steps he proposes to take to provide alternative contracts so as to avoid the dismissal of the skilled experimental labour force involved.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Aubrey Jones): The cancellation of the supersonic bomber project announced in the Defence White Paper involves the cancellation of the contract for its engine, and this together with some running down of other work will bring the firm's expenditure this year on research and development work for my Ministry down to about two-thirds of last year's figure. There is little likelihood of my being able to find alternative work to fill this gap.

Miss Burton: As the Minister, on 8th February, gave an undertaking to try to find alternative work to offset the cutback in defence orders, and as that policy was further put forward in this House by the Lord Privy Seal on behalf of the Prime Minister on 20th February, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman what value he expects the people of Coventry to put upon the word of this Government?

Mr. Jones: Whenever possible I certainly will do my best to find alternative work, but I must remind the hon. Lady that the aircraft industry expanded unduly as a result of the Korean rearmament boom and some measure of contraction is now unavoidable. We ought to be realistic about that.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask whether the Government accept responsibility for finding alternative employment for those who are rendered unemployed by the cuts in the defence services? Do they accept that?

Mr. Jones: No, Sir. My responsibility, as far as this Question is concerned, is limited to endeavouring to find alternative defence work and alternative civil work in the aircraft field, and that I will most certainly do. It is unrealistic to expect civil work to offset a reduction in defence work.

Mr. Griffiths: As the right hon. Gentleman himself approved the plans for the reduction of defence expenditure, with the consequent result in unemployment, has


he consulted the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Labour to see if something can be done to provide alternative employment?

Mr. Jones: Yes, Sir. Consultations with my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Labour are always taking place.

Mr. Crossman: When the Minister said that the industry had expanded unduly as a result of Korea, is he solemnly telling us that we did something wrong in Coventry in making the aircraft that we were asked to make? Are we to take the blame for that? What does the Minister mean by "unduly"?

Mr. Jones: I meant that in the course of the Korean rearmament boom the aircraft industry expanded to a point which can no longer be sustained.

Mr. Crossman: Then the right hon. Gentleman does not mean "unduly"?

Miss Burton: On a point of order. May I ask what redress a Member has when a statement is made by the Prime Minister in this House which is specifically repudiated by another Minister? Furthermore, this figure was reached because the Minister of Supply gave this company the money because of the excellence of its technical organisation?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady could raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment, if she gets the opportunity.

Miss Burton: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Stores Sale, Ruddington

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Minister of Supply why the items shown as signals vans, ambulances, platform trailers, and radio-equipped cars were not offered to the Home Office for Civil Defence use before being offered for sale by auction at Ruddington on 14th to 17th May, 1957.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: The items referred to were offered to the Home Office.

Mr. Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in certain parts of the North-East, Civil Defence forces are unable to undertake their proper training because,

in the words of a letter to me from the Under-Secretary at the Home Office a few days ago, "the despatch riders ought to use their own motor-cycles"? Having regard to the fact that motor-cycles were on offer at this sale, ought there not to be closer co-operation between the Departments concerned?

Mr. Jones: The fact that these items were for sale was known to the Home Office, and, from the Home Office point of view, there was no requirement for Civil Defence purposes. I therefore had no alternative but to proceed with the sale.

Aircraft (Passenger Flights)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Supply if he will now revise the security regulations which have permitted a Conservative Member of Parliament to fly in the Victor bomber and not a Labour Member of Parliament.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: I am anxious to gratify the desire of the hon. Gentleman for a flight in the Victor as soon as I can, but I would ask him to curb his impatience for a little longer until the flying programme is further advanced and more aircraft are available.

Mr. Beswick: While not complaining at all that the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) was able to fly in this aircraft, because I am quite certain that the safety of the country was in no way diminished by that fact, is it not the case that the refusal to allow me to accept an invitation was not based upon expedience or on the flying programme but on security grounds? In view of the fact that commercial airline pilots were able to fly in this aircraft, why should there be discrimination against myself?

Mr. Jones: I have no objection, on purely security grounds, to the hon. Gentleman flying in this aircraft, but I would ask him to appreciate that if I give him permission to fly in this aircraft, then by the same token I should have to give permission to other Members of Parliament. I hope the hon. Gentleman is not asking me to discriminate in his favour. The point I am trying to make in this is that the number of aircraft is at the moment limited, that they are scheduled for test flights for development,


and to open the door to many passengers would impede this work of development, and that, I think, would be undesirable.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In reply to the supplementary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), the Minister has said that he had no objection on security grounds to my hon. Friend flying in this aircraft. Was there anybody else who had such an objection, and, if so, why? Since one hon. Member of this House has already been permitted to fly, why is the right hon. Gentleman refusing permission to my lion. Friend?

Mr. Jones: The hon. and gallant Gentleman on this side of the House who has made a flight happens to be the deputy-chairman of the company which is making the aircraft. There are all kinds of cases in which some Members of Parliament have advantages over others, and we cannot possibly eliminate all these natural advantages.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is not the Minister aware that by allowing my hon. Friend to fly in this aircraft he is not opening the door to any other hon. Members? Matters of this kind can always be dealt with through the usual channels, and may I ask him to suggest to his right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal that this question of flying in the Victor should be taken up in that way?

Mr. Jones: I shall be perfectly happy to see this matter discussed through the usual channels, but I would ask the hon. Member for Uxbridge to have some appreciation of my difficulties. If I allow one hon. Member to fly it means that I must allow others. I think there is a special difficulty in the case of my hon. and gallant Friend, but I should be very glad to see the matter discussed through the usual channels.

Air Commodore Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have been an executive and a director of this company for a number of years, and that I flew in this aircraft in the course of my duties with that company? Would it not be a good thing if more executives of companies flew in their companies' aircraft? May I say that my firm would be very glad to take the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) if he can be cleared, but, on the other hand, may I

be allowed to fly in the Vulcan, the aircraft of our competitor?

Mr. Speaker: This matter is to be discussed through the usual channels, and I think it is better to leave it there.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Supply under what security regulations German journalists are permitted to fly in British military aeroplanes but not British journalists.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: There is no regulation giving such a preference.

Mr. Beswick: Is it not the case that in the last fortnight a German journalist has flown in the Hawker 7, and that permission has been refused to British journalists? Is not this another example of how the security regulations—and it was a matter of security in the other case, and nothing at all to do with the firm, because the reason given was that it was a matter of security regulations—is not this another case in which security regulations can be put on one side when commercial expediency so decides?

Mr. Jones: It certainly is the case that within the last fortnight a German journalist has flown in this aircraft. It also happened that in exactly the same flight four British journalists took part, too. As a matter of fact, the security objections to journalists flying in this aircraft were removed as long ago as last autumn.

Mr. Beswick: Quite apart from the fact that it was quite impossible for six men to fly in this aircraft, can we now take it from the Minister's reply that other British journalists who want to make this flight will now be permitted to do so?

Mr. Jones: Yes, Sir. There is no objection to other British journalists taking part, and, in this instance, they took part in flights on exactly the same day.

Oral Answers to Questions —  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Hospital Doctors

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health what representations he has received on behalf of doctors serving their interim year in hospitals; and whether he has any proposals to make to improve their conditions of service.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): My right hon. Friend has received no representations on behalf of these doctors. In common with other junior doctors in the hospital service they have had an increase of 10 per cent. in their pay as from 1st April last, as an interim measure pending the report of the Royal Commission on Doctors' and Dentists' remuneration.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great anxiety that has been aroused about the hours of work being done by many of these staffs, and is this not due to the restrictions which his own Department has imposed on new appointments for more senior staff in hospitals?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: No, I do not think so. I think the hon. Gentleman may he raising the matter as the result of an article in the Observer. As regards living conditions and the organisation of work, these are primarily matters for the hospital authorities and the senior medical staff. The other matters, other than those to which I have referred, are really matters for the appropriate Whitley Council.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have personally received representations on this matter, quite apart from the article in the Press, and will he not at least consider something more, as far as family allowances or something of that kind is concerned?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: That really is a matter for the Whitley Council.

World Health Organisation (Malaria Eradication)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health whether he will now recommend that a contribution should be made by Her Majesty's Government to the special fund for malaria eradication established by the World Health Organisation.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I have nothing of substance to add to the reply given to the hon. Member by my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Labour and National Service on 14th November, 1955, when he pointed out that provision for malaria eradication is included in the regular budget of the organisation to which the United Kingdom contributes,

and that in these circumstances it is not proposed to contribute to the special fund.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is that not a quite disgraceful reply in view of the fact that it is common knowledge that there is a race with time against this disease because of the growing immunisation of some of the carrier mosquitoes against the new insecticides? Is it not desirable that the very minute funds of the Organisation should not be used up on this project when countries all over the world could be invited to make their contributions? Why cannot we make some modest contribution to this proposal?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: That raises much wider issues. The Organisation is held up more by lack of the necessary technical personnel than by anything else.

Mental Illness (Report)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health when the Report of the Royal Commission on Mental Illness and Mental Deficiency will become available.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I am informed that it is likely to be presented towards the end of this month.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the House will be grateful for anything he can do to speed up publication, in view of the fact that we desire to press forward with legislation based upon a real assessment of the facts rather than upon emotional feelings?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's point of view, but I would point out that the end of this month is not very far away.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Retirement Pensions

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he is aware that the present rates of the retirement pension of 40s. for a single person and 65s. for a married couple were fixed in April, 1955; that in comparison with the £ sterling being worth 20s. in 1945, these pensions only had a purchasing value of 27s. 3d. and 44s. 3d., respectively, on 25th April, 1955; and, using


as the basis of calculation the retail price indices, what would be the relative purchasing value of these pensions today in comparison with 1945.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Edith Pitt): The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, sir". On the basis of the Cost of Living Index for the period up to June, 1947, and the Retail Prices Index from that date, the amounts required in 1945 to equal the purchasing value of 40s. and 65s. today were, respectively, 25s. ld. and 40s. 8d. The hon. Member will no doubt be aware that in 1945 the old-age pension was 10s. for a single person and 20s. for a married couple.

Mr. Lewis: In view of the fact that hon. Members and most people in the country agree that old-age pensioners are having, and have had for some years, a very shabby deal, will the hon. Lady not promise to do something to help these people because, as we know, many of them are passing away? Every hon. Member would be only too pleased to vote any money that is necessary. Can the hon. Lady please hold out a little hope that something will be done for these people?

Miss Pitt: The hon. Gentleman fails to make his case by taking 1945 as a basis when, as I have explained, the pension payable was quite different and was under a different Act of Parliament. Today's pension is still worth much more than was paid in 1945 under the old Act.

Mr. Lewis: Will not the hon. Lady answer my supplementary question?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Canned Meat

Mr. Wiley: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what losses have occurred in the storage of canned meat by his Department; and what steps he has taken to avoid such losses.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): The total loss to date represents about 7¾ per cent. of the total cost of acquisition and maintenance of the

reserve of canned meat. The greater part of this was due to the elimination, before the end of State trading in meat, of certain packs unsuitable for long-term storage. The remainder have been placed in humidity-controlled storage which should prevent deterioration from rust.

Mr. Wiley: While welcoming the fact that this canned meat is now subject to better storage, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can explain why it was not in better storage from the beginning? Was it not made quite clear from the beginning that, as these were strategic stocks, they would probably be held for a long time?

Mr. Amory: There must always be some loss on the turnover of these stocks. At the time that this was bought, meat was not in very plentiful supply, and it was expected that it would be easy to turn the meat over quickly and sell it without appreciable loss. In fact, meat came into much more plentiful supply. At that time there was also a very inadequate amount of humidity-controlled storage. That position has been rectified since.

Mr. Royle: Is it not a fact that canned meat is regarded in the main as an emergency store? In those circumstances, would it not always be advisable to see that preparation is made for a long period?

Mr. Amory: I agree, but at the time there was not humidity-controlled storage available for the whole stock. At that time, in 1953, it was very much easier to sell turnover canned meat because the supply of fresh meat was much less than it is today.

Eggs

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what stocks of frozen egg his Department still holds; how long such stocks have been held by his Department; how far they have been tested for salmonella infection; and with what results.

Mr. Amory: My Department still holds about 260 tons of frozen whole egg, nearly all of which is of Commonwealth origin and arrived in this country at the end of 1955 and the beginning of 1956. All the consignments concerned were


sampled by the appropriate health authorities and this balance still on hand represents residual stocks, in samples of which some small degree of salmonella infection has been found.

Mr. Willey: In view of the fact that previous outbreaks of food poisoning have been traced to frozen eggs, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that every precaution will be taken before these stocks are released?

Mr. Amory: I can give that assurance. These stocks will be disposed of under suitable safeguards to public health and in close consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

Mr. Hastings: How long can salmonella infection remain active in eggs and be capable of producing disease in human beings when the eggs are eaten?

Mr. Amory: I am afraid that I have not that information, but it is relevant and I will write and give it as well as I can to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take in view of the size of the subsidy arising from the guarantee for eggs.

Mr. Amory: The guaranteed price for hen eggs was reduced after the last Annual Review by l¾d. per dozen. I cannot, of course, anticipate decisions which must be taken after the next Annual Review when all appropriate factors will be taken into consideration, including the long-term assurances to the industry. I think, however, that it would be right to warn producers now that, unless there is some major change in circumstances between now and next February, a further reduction in the level of the guarantee, within the long-term assurances, must be expected. Clearly, in present circumstances, when we are self-supporting in eggs, the Government cannot encourage any further expansion of production—indeed, some reduction from the quantities in prospect is desirable.

Mr. Nabarro: Could my right hon. Friend confirm that during the last few months when there has been this prodigious output from the hens of this country the Treasury has actually been subsidising egg production to the tune of

more than £1 million a week? Can he say what rearrangements are to be made in the future to enable British producers to export their subsidised eggs to Western Europe, which seems to be a profitable outlet?

Mr. Amory: The figure that my hon. Friend has mentioned was certainly the figure at which the subsidy was running during the peak of the flush, but the peak has passed now and the present figure is very much lower than that. The real explanation is that the British hen. like hon. Members in this House, has recently been performing prodigies of productivity.

Mr. Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us who are egg producers to what extent he wants poultry keepers like me to cut down production? It is no good saying "cut down"; to what extent does he want us to cut down?

Mr. Amory: I am anxious that poultry keepers should produce as economically as they possibly can and that they should cull their flocks with that object in mind. As regards the export of eggs, that matter is being discussed at present with the representatives of the Danish authorities who are either here or are coming tomorrow.

Mr. Willey: What was the consumption of eggs over the last financial year compared with the previous financial year? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the loss has largely occurred through the right hon. Gentleman's failure to even out the production of eggs?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Nabarro: We got only one "squiffy" egg per week under your Government.

Mr. Amory: No, I would not agree with what the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has said. I agree that there is considerable scope for increased consumption of eggs in this country. In America, consumption of eggs per head is about 50 per cent. higher than in this country. So we have scope. At present prices, eggs are very good value.

Milk

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the consumption of full price fresh milk for the month of April.

Mr. Amory: It is provisionally estimated to have been 104 million gallons in the United. Kingdom.

Mr. Willey: In view of the substantial decrease in the consumption of milk, will not the right hon. Gentleman review his price policy? Does he realise how absurd it is to expect the Milk Marketing Board to advertise the sale of milk when he is preventing the sale of milk by his price policy?

Mr. Amory: The hon. Gentleman is off the beam a bit. Consumption for April is not down on consumption for March. There were thirty days in April and thirty-one days in March. The retail price of milk was reduced on 1st April from 8d. to 7½d.

Mr. Willey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the figures he has given show a decrease of more than three million gallons compared with April of last year? We have to compare month with month. That is a serious decline. Surely he should recognise it, and recognise also his own responsibility for that decline.

Mr. Amory: I fully recognise my own responsibility, but again, comparing 1957 with 1956, I would point out that in the current year the whole of the Easter holidays fell in April.

Mr. Wiley: In view of the unsatisfactory reply of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give notice that I will endeavour to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Wing Commander Bullus: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you assist me with Question No. 47? I put it down to the Paymaster-General, who answered Questions first today, but it was transferred at the request of the Prime Minister, who likes to answer Questions on this subject, but as he is not here today he has asked the Paymaster-General to answer the Question. In those circumstances, do you think I could have an answer to it now?

Mr. Speaker: Only in the form of a Written Answer, which the hon. and gallant Member will receive in due course.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put:—

That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 142.

Division No. 105.]
AYES
[3.32 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cole, Norman
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)


Aitken, W. T.
Conant, Ma]. Sir Roger
Green, A


Alport, C. J. M.
Cooke, Robert C.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Cooper, A. E.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Arbuthnot, John
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Ashton, H.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Balniel, Lord
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Barber, Anthony
Crowder, Sir John (Flnchley)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Barter, John
Cunningham, Knox
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V, (Macclesfd)


Beamish, Maj, Tufton
Davies,Rt.Hon.Clement(Montgomery)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hay, John


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James


Black, C. W.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hicks-Beach, Ma]. W. W.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Braine, B. R,
Errington, Sir Erio
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. w. H,
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Fell, A.
Hornby, R. P.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Finlay, Graeme
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Fisher, Nigel
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Bryan, P.
Fort, R.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Freeth, Denzil
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Godber, J. B.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Campbell, Sir David
Goodhart, Philip
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Cary, Sir Robert
Gough, C. F. H.
Keegan, D.


Channon, Sir Henry
Gower, H. R.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Kerr, H. W.




Kershaw, J. A.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Kimball, M.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Kirk, P. M.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Lagden, G. W.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Leavey, J. A.
Page, R. G.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Partridge, E.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Pitman, I. J.
Teeling, W.


Longden, Gilbert
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Temple, John M.


Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Pott, H. P.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Powell, J. Enoch
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R.(Croydon, S.)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Raikes, Sir Victor
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


McAdden, S. J.
Redmayne, M.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


McCallum, Major Sir Duncan
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Remnant, Hon. P.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Renton, D. L. M.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Ridsdale, J. E.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)
Rippon, A. G. F.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Robinson,Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wall, Major Patrick


Maddan, Martin
Robson-Brown, W.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Marshall, Douglas
Russell, R. S.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Mathew, R.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Mawby, R. L.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Medticott, Sir Frank
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)



Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Spearman, Sir Alexander
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Speir, R. M.
Mr. Oakshott and


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Mr. Hughes-Young.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Hale, Leslie
Paget, R. T.


Albu, A. H.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paling Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hamilton, W. W.
Paton, John


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hannan, W.
Pentland, N.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Popplewell, E.


Balfour, A.
Hastings, S.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Hayman, F. H.
Probert, A. R.


Benson, G.
Healey, Denis
Rankin, John


Beswick, Frank
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Redhead, E. C.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw vale)
Herbison, Miss M.
Reeves, J.


Blackburn, F.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Reid, William


Blenkinsop, A.
Hobson, C- R. (Keighley)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Blyton, W. R.
Holmes, Horace
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Houghton, Douglas
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brockway, A. F.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Burke, W. A.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Ross, William


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Royle, C.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hunter, A. E.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Carmichael, J.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Skeffington, A. M.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Chapman, W. D.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, David (The Hartiepools)
Sparks, J. A.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, G. M.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Sylvester, G. O.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lewis, Arthur
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lipton, Marcus
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Davles, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Mabon, Dr. j. Dickson
Tomney, F.


Donnelly, D. L.
MacColl, J. E.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Viant, S. P.


Dye, S.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mallalleu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
West, D. G.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mason, Roy
Wheeldon, W. E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mellish, R. J.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Fienburgh, W.
Messer, Sir F.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Fletcher, Eric
Mitchison, G. R.
Wiloock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moody, A. S.
Willey, Frederick


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert(Lewl'm, S.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)
Moss, R.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Gibson, C. W.
Mulley, F. W.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Woof, R. E.


Grey, C. F.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oram, A. E.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Orbaoh, M.



Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Owen, W. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Deer and Mr Wilkins.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS BILL

considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1—(CONTRIBUTIONS TO NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE.)

3.43 p.m.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, at the beginning to insert:
Subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section."?

The Chairman:: It would be convenient if the Committee considered the first two Amendments together. The second is in page 2, line 15, at the end to insert:
(4) Regulations may provide that in discharge of any liability of a person under subsection (2) of this section there shall be credited to that person, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, the amount of any payments made by that person during the fifty-two contribution weeks immediately preceding the occurrence of the liability, being payments made in respect of charges under section one of the National Health Service Act, 1951. or under sections one or two of the National Health Service Act, 1952.

Mr. Marquand: I agree, Sir Charles. The first Amendment is only a paving Amendment for the second.
The Clause embodies the main principle of the Bill, namely, the establishment of a separate contribution for the National Health Service over and above the contribution which everybody makes, whoever he may be, however young or however old, in the form of taxation. Everybody in the country pays taxation of one form or another. Over and above that, we are asked to approve a special contribution from those who are insured under the National Insurance Act.
One is in difficulty in moving these Amendments, because they appear to accept the principle of the Bill to which we are opposed. I must explain, for although hon. Members will be aware of it those outside may not, that it is simply because of our procedure that I have to move the Amendments in this way at this stage. When we come to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," we shall be able to

make clear what are our objections to the Clause.
For the moment, we have to assume that the Committee has accepted the Clause, although we hope it will not. On the assumption that the Clause be accepted, which, we hope, will not eventuate, we move, in effect, that the contributions which any insured person is expected to make to the National Health Service shall be offset by any charges which he may have been required to make for services rendered by the Health Service to him.
If the Clause were accepted, it would provide that in future there should be three forms of payment for the Health Service: payment from taxes, which all citizens pay; payment by contributions from the insured; and payment for particular services under the general service in the form of charges on the Health Service. Our Amendment suggests that if there is to be a contribution and if we are to have this new form of tax to pay part of the cost of the Health Service, at least it should replace the third form of payment to which I have alluded, the charges which are levied on the particular parts of the Service.
We dislike the contribution, but we dislike the charges even more. If we were forced to have the contribution we should at least find our opposition modified a little if, in the process, we could get rid of the charges. We suggest that persons who have had to pay charges ought not to pay contributions.
In commending the Bill to the House on Second Reading, the Minister of Health, as reported at col. 992, of HANSARD, said:
 After all, the facilities of the Health Service are available to everyone on a basis of equality. It is, therefore, reasonable, in my view. that there should be a contribution from everybody during the period in which they are fit and well towards the cost of a Service which helps them when they are sick, and in youth and in old age, when they do not contribute to it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1957; Vol. 569 c. 992.]
I agree with the principle which he enunciated that it is reasonable that people should pay when they are fit and well and: should not pay when they are sick, and the Amendment gives the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to incorporate in the Bill that principle which he himself enunciated. I believe that it is a


good principle. Indeed, I believe that it is the principle upon which the Health Service was mainly founded when the Acts establishing it were introduced in 1946.
The idea is that we should pay while we are fit and well and earning wages or other incomes, and then, when we need the Service, should receive it at that time, when we are unable to earn our incomes, without being asked at that point to pay. Apparently the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that principle. If he does, this is an apportunity to incorporate it in the Bill.
The charges under the National Health Service Act, 1952, are charges for dentures, spectacles, surgical appliances of various kinds, dental treatment and prescriptions. Let me remind the Committee that all these charges are in force today by virtue of the Act of 1952, an Act introduced by a Conservative Government and passed through the House with the help of their majority in the last Parliament.
It is true, of course, that the original charges for dentures and spectacles were introduced by an Act of 1951 to which we have, for technical reasons, had to make reference in our Amendment. Though we have had to make that reference, it is, of course, indubitable that the charges levied by the 1951 Act are in operation today solely by virtue of the 1952 Act. By the 1951 legislation, the charges for dentures and spectacles would have come to an end in April, 1954. They have continued since, and are at present in permanent form, by the Act of 1952. Therefore, we no longer have any responsibility for those charges being enforced. Though they remain enshrined in the Statute Book for 1951, they would not any longer be enforced had not the 1952 Measure been passed.
This, therefore, is the only Amendment which we could devise to provide that people who are now required to pay these charges while they are sick and ill should be relieved, to the extent of the charge that they have paid, of the liability to pay the new Health Service contribution. It is not, I agree, a perfect Amendment, because the Health Service contribution is levied upon those who pay insurance contributions, whereas the charges themselves, as we all know, bear

most heavily not upon people who pay those contributions, but upon the children, the mothers and the old people who are not required to pay contributions under National Insurance.
I recognise that the charges do bear most heavily upon those people, and the right hon. Gentleman might say in criticism of the Amendments that we are now considering that they would not relieve the most deserving cases. I admit that that is true, but, as I have already said, I am under the difficulty of having to propose Amendments to a Clause to which, in principle, I object in any case. What I hope we shall have, as a result of the Amendment, is serious consideration by the Minister himself of the principle which he enunciated on Second Reading, and which I have already quoted; the principle that he introduced this Bill partly to ensure that, as he put it,
… there should be a contribution from everybody during the period in which they are fit and well …
and not when they are sick and ill.
That is the purpose of the Amendment. Its clumsiness or lack of complete satisfaction is due simply to procedural difficulties. Though the Minister may well say that he cannot accept the Amendment as it is, I hope he will say that he now recognises that he is proposing to have a general contribution in addition to tax contributions from insured persons and that he ought to get rid of the charges; that it is quite illogical and absurd to introduce a Bill for a contribution on the ground that we should pay when fit and well, and then continue to exact charges from persons who are not fit and well—persons who require medicines, or spectacles, or appliances, or whatever it may be.
If he would go so far to meet us, he would do a good deal to remove our objections to the Bill. If he were to say, "I cannot do it under this Bill, but I will introduce another Measure and will get rid of the charges," then, indeed, much of the objection that we have, not in principle but as practical citizens, would be removed.
If, on the other hand, he can say nothing of the kind, but says, "I shall continue with this totally illogical situation—which I have myself described as illogical; I shall continue to have special


contributions and taxes paid while people are fit and well, but shall, in spite of that, continue to impose on the old people, the children, and the mothers of large families this heavy burden of having to pay for medicines, drugs, and sometimes for appliances which they need when sick," we must then press our Amendment and indicate our dissatisfaction with the Government's attitude to the whole business.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel, when he deals with this Amendment, that he can come some way to meet us. Let him, at least, say that he will get rid of some of the charges. If he were to say, "In this particular year I cannot go so far as that, but I will get rid of the most objectionable of them," he would be going some distance towards it. The most objectionable charge of all, of course, is the charge last imposed by the former Minister of Health—the charge of 1s. per item on the prescription instead of 1s. for the single prescription.
As we have said many times, that is an abominable charge. It is the worst and most loathsome of all these charges, and could not be justified by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor except by saying that it was the only way he could raise £5 million or whatever the amount was. It was a comparatively small sum of money—I do not recollect exactly what it was, but the Minister must know. It was a miserable amount of money, saved in the most objectionable possible way.
I hope that the Minister will at least leave us that, and say, "I cannot get rid of all the charges at the moment, although I agree that there should be no charges and have said during the Second Reading debate that people should pay when fit and well, but not when sick". If he would say, "I should like to get rid of all the charges", that would make people think that the Government believed in some of the pledges which they put out at the last General Election.
If he could say that, and then add. "Though I am not able to go so far as that, since I am imposing this new levy I will at least offset it by abolishing this prescription charge altogether," that would give hope and comfort to the thousands, nay, millions who voted for the Conservative Party at the last General Election because of its promise to provide a better Service for the same money.

That was the promise contained in the Conservative Election manifesto.
Therefore, however clumsy this Amendment may be—and I realise that it has imperfections—it does provide the right hon. Gentleman with a golden opportunity, as Minister of Health, succeeding the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), really to make a mark today, if he wishes, in the way in which he deals with it. I hope that he will seize that opportunity with both hands and make the best of it.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I think that both sides of the Committee will recognise that the main objective that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) and his colleagues have in mind might be deemed a very good one, but it is not by any means clear whether this Amendment would achieve that objective. Indeed, as he himself admitted, it is doubtful whether it would bring relief to those who are most in need of help. It may be that to help people who are in particular need other remedies might be more appropriate.
The right hon. Gentleman specified certain categories of persons, such as the older people, and widows and mothers, and it might reasonably be argued that the more appropriate way of helping such people would be to confer upon them the necessary increases in other National Insurance benefits which they receive from time to time.
4.0 p.m.
I am open to correction from my right hon. Friend, but I imagine that there may be another objection to this form of words. The Amendment seems to identify the contribution and the charge together, and, although I may be wrong, I imagine that the contribution is something which is devoted to the whole Health Service, while the charge is specifically attached to a particular aspect of the Service.
We all recognise that the contribution is used in toto to sustain, among other things, such matters as the hospital services, while the charge is appropriated to a particular aspect of the Health Service. It may be objectionable—although, as I have said, I am open to correction—that an attempt is made to identify a part of the Service with something which is more appropriately related to the whole of the Service.
If I may say so respectfully, I thought that the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East made some remarkable party political points. He said that he dislikes the contributions, and he then said that he dislikes the charges even more. It seems peculiar that he should say that, in view of the fact that he was a member of the Government which introduced the principle of the contribution. Indeed, he was the Minister to introduce the Measure which first established the principle of the charges.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that he agreed with the principle that we should pay the doctor while we were well but not when we were ill. He and his hon. Friends have constantly advocated that more and more of this burden should be attached to taxation, which, of course, includes indirect taxation. It might be argued that when a person is ill his indirect taxation continues, whereas the actual contributions may he held in abeyance. In other words, the remedies which hon. Members opposite seek are more difficult to relate to illness than are the remedies which are in the Bill as it stands.
The right hon. Gentleman attributed the charges to the Act of 1952 passed by a Conservative Government, but I submit that that is a specious form of argument in view of the fact that the principle was definitely laid down by a portion of the party opposite in which the right hon. Gentleman was a leading light. Indeed, he introduced the Measure, rightly or wrongly, which established that principle. I agree that the motive for helping those in need is very good, but I doubt whether the instrument chosen in this Amendment is appropriate.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I am very glad indeed to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) in his contentions. While in detail there may he some alterations that hon. Members may wish to make, the principle of the matter is clear enough.
I was not quite clear from the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) whether he objected to the general principle of the Amendment or whether he thought that the wording needed tidying up. If he feels that the wording needs to be altered, we will welcome his help, his

further suggestions and possibly support later in our discussions. If, on the matter of general principle, the hon. Member feels that charges should he imposed both while people are ill and when they are not. that we should have in a sense a duplication of the charges for which the National Health Service Bill provides, then we oppose his point of view.
I wish to emphasise. in particular, the very strong objections which are being expressed in my constituency, as in many others, about the effect of some of the charges. Like my right hon. Friend, I agree that we might very well have adopted a more friendly attitude to this Bill had it linked with its Proposals the abolition of the charges. at any rate, in some part. The feelings that are being expressed in my constituencv—and I do not pretend that they are peculiar to my constituency—relate to the effect of the prescription charges and particularly the addition which has recently been made to them.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) in his place. I have had a great number of representations from pharmacists in my division concerning many cases which they feel indicate extreme hardship due to the operation of these 1s. charges. Only the other day a further case was brought to my attention by a local pharmacist. He said that a lady in my division had brought to him a prescription that was clearly a few days old, although the prescription was very urgent. The lady said that she had not been able to bring it earlier because she could not afford the charge.
It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to scoff at the fact that these difficulties still arise, although admittedly people with average wages are able to meet certain payments. But the fact is—and it is demonstrated every week of the year—that these things are happening, and that there are many people who cannot immediately meet these charges. It is not just a question of 1s. sometimes the charges amount to quite a few shillings, and many people feel that they have to delay going to the chemists for some days. The effect from a medical point of view can be serious.
The pharmacist in the case to which I have just referred told the lady that she


should have gone to him in any case and that he would have dealt with the prescription whether she had the necessary money or not. I am sure that there are many pharmacists who hold that point of view. Nevertheless, these difficulties arise. There are other cases. Pharmacists have been reporting to me cases of people who omit items from their prescriptions in order to reduce the charge that they have to pay.
These are ridiculous matters for any responsible service. It is a disgrace that the Service should be reduced to this position. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have seized the opportunity of trying to put an end to this miserable charge as some kind of alleviation of the Health Service contributions that are now proposed. But not a bit of it. He is apparently welcoming both the charge and the contribution with open arms.
I should have thought that the Minister would have considered some of the points referred to by the Guillebaud Committee. We have the Committee's very clear views, in this case unanimous views, about dental treatment, for example. The Committee recommended a new approach to the question of charges for dental treatment. I am not saying that I regard that as sufficient or satisfactory, but at least it would be something. The Committee suggested that once people had a clean bill of dental health, from that date onwards they should not be expected to meet any further dental charges. It was the Committee's view that the charges for dental treatment constitute a very real hardship to the community and interfere with the value of the Service.
In fact, the Guillebaud Committee used these words:
 It seems to us that the charge for dental treatment is impeding a number of people from making use of the general dental service…
So far as the existing charges are concerned, the Report goes on to say:
…we would regard the reduction of the incidence of this charge as having the highest priority when additional resources become available.
I agree that the Committee inserted that saving phrase.
Presumably right hon. Gentlemen opposite will always say that the additional resources are not available. They

always say that, but I thought that the Bill was making resources available and that that was part of its purpose. If the Bill is making any financial resources available, why should they not be used for this first priority which the Guillebaud Committee suggests? Surely that is a quite reasonable proposition. I do not see, therefore, why it should be impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to consider the basis of the case which we are putting forward.
The same point arises not only on dental treatment, but on charges for spectacles. The Guillebaud Committee, not merely a minority in this case, but the whole of the Committee, said:
 It seems to us that the level of the charge for spectacles is such as to constitute a barrier to a proportion of the people who need to make use of the service; and we recommend that, when the resources become available, a fairly high priority (second only to an adjustment of the dental treatment charge) be given to a substantial reduction in the amount of the charge for spectacles.
The right hon. Gentleman has said nothing to show that he regards that as being as important as the Guillebaud Committee regarded it.
I should have thought that he would have been glad to sweep away some of the other disgraceful charges, for example, on appliances, which are effective today. This would have been an opportunity for him to have done just that. Let him not imagine that there is not very strong feeling in the country on this subject. Many people seem to give the impression that because the average level of earnings is, we are glad to know, relatively high, charges do not constitute a barrier to very many people in a community. But very many among the lower-paid workers and many others who, for one reason or another, may not be able or not want to claim National Assistance, find them a barrier.
The other factor which we have had so prominently brought to our attention, even if we did not know it before, has been demonstrated by an investigation into the care of old people in Salford, in which it was found that many people, even though they could have claimed National Assistance, do not do so. There are very many people who do not want to make claims and who are caused additional hardship by the health charges. Again, one would have thought that the


right hon. Gentleman would have regarded that as a useful lever in his arguments and discussions with the Treasury.
One knows that the right hon. Gentleman is not an entirely free agent in matters of this sort and that the Treasury has very strong views on them. That being so, one would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have attempted to use some diplomacy and would have agreed to a proposal of this kind, for an additional flat rate contribution, only if he could get, on the other side, some remission of charges which are already becoming intolerable. One would have thought that as Minister of Health he would have taken an opportunity of this kind.
It is very disappointing to hon. Members to find that he has either attempted to do so and failed, or has not attempted it. Many hon. Members feel that it would have been better if the whole wretched Bill had been handled by the Treasury rather than the Minister of Health. It is very disappointing to find the Minister of Health having to discuss questions of this kind rather than important health matters which we are all eager to discuss. I can only reinforce the case made by my right hon. Friend again urging that even if the wording of the Amendment does not prove satisfactory, the right hon. Gentleman will give serious thought to the general principles.
I very much hope that the hon. Member for Putney will feel able to comment on, or to reinforce, some of the things I have said. Certainly, our experience of pharmacy and the other evidence which comes to us is in the same direction, that the position for many people in our constituencies is becoming very serious. After all, it is the pharmacists who are, as it were, almost in the front line and who receive evidence perhaps even before it comes to hon. Members. On those grounds, I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to show his willingness to consider our proposal.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Philip Bell: It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East

(Mr. Marquand) and the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) made it quite clear that this is not merely a Committee point, but involves a big difference of principle between the two sides of the Committee. I found it very disappointing that neither hon. Member should have said how much the proposal will cost. However much we may think that something is desirable, we must find out from where the money is to come. The Amendment involves more money being spent.
Let us take an extreme example. Supposing that the proposal in the Amendment costs £100 million—I know that it does not—would the same arguments be used? Would hon. Gentlemen opposite say that they do not mind whether the proposal costs £100 million, that they must have it because of a grave injustice, and that the country is suffering under these charges? It would not have been said if the cost had been £100 million, so there is very little justification for the elaborate statements that everybody is groaning under these charges.
Let us find where we can agree. We can agree that there are some people who are so poor or so ill that they must he assisted and not charged anything. However, there is already provision for that in National Assistance benefits and for repayment of the money paid under the recently imposed charges. At any rate, that will help the people who are poorest.
Now comes the division. The Opposition say that irrespective of whether someone can afford it, irrespective of whether he is getting £20 a week, £200 a week, or £2 a week, he must have his aspirins paid for by all the taxpayers.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I thought that hon. Members opposite wanted the classless society which they are always advocating.

Mr. Bell: I do not know what the hon. Member means by "classless society". Perhaps we can discuss that on another occasion.
I was saying that that is a point of view, that everything should be paid for irrespective of means. I can understand it, but I am bound to say that we have to consider where the money will come from. We must still look at the cash. There is no top limit to what can be spent on


medicine. We could have people X-rayed every week, if we had the money; we could have their doctors visit them every fortnight, if we had the money; we could have their teeth inspected every month. if we had the money. I have no doubt that everybody would be better off if that were done, but, in fact, we have to have a practical limit.
We take a view different from that of the Opposition, not because of a slogan about a classless society, but because some of us think that first things should come first and that, on the whole, we are more likely to help the urgent needs of the Service. more likely to have more money for hospital beds and new hospitals for large numbers of people, if we do not spend too much on people who can, without any inconvenience, afford to spend it for themselves. That is why we have heard this half-hearted nonsense that some people object to the Amendment.
It is a matter of whether it is better for the whole of the people to charge a few of the people for some things, so that money is not simply thrown away, or whether to make the payment irrespective of means. This is an honest and genuine disagreement. One person thinks one way and another person thinks differently, but it is a genuine matter of difference. I regret very much that it should be suggested that our attitude is dictated by anything except a difference in weighing up what is better for the Health Service.
It was once pointed out by a distinguished right hon. Gentleman opposite, in a phrase which most of us remember, that torrents of medicine were being poured down people's throats. [HON. MEMBERS:" Cascades."] There is another argument—

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the hon. and learned Member aware that rather more cascades are now going down, in spite of the charges?

Mr. Bell: That is the interesting thing. It shows that the charges do not seem to be putting people in the grave distress of not being able to obtain the attention that they need. Although the amount of medicine now going down people's throats is greater, I doubt whether people's health is improved as a consequence.
The Clause, which raises the question whether charges should be made, involves the payment of money. We need to know what amount is involved by the Amendment and to weigh it against the hardship that is being caused. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East did not state the amount involved and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister can tell us. The hon. Member told us something of the inconvenience which people suffer, but I did not find his argument really strong. I have not noticed any desperate condition which must be relieved.
If, however, a proposal on the lines suggested by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East is accepted, I hope people will face up to the fact that there must be either increased payments or higher taxation to deal with it, and not merely to deal with it but to enable a lot of people who can now well afford a few shillings not to pay these few shillings. I should have thought that in the present state of our economy we are not behaving like realists if we accept what are well intended but, when looked at closely, only sentimental points.

Mr. W. Griffiths: The Committee should be grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Bolton. East (Mr. Philip Bell), who has reminded us once again of what one might call the classical philosophy of the Conservative Party in its approach to social security. There were many Tories —and they were in the House of Commons—who disapproved of the whole principle of the National Health Service, for they voted against the Second Reading of the Bill and at the end of the day, after many hours of anxious inquiry in Committee, when the Bill came back to the House they voted against the principle on Third Reading. From their point of view, why should they support such a policy of redistribution as envisaged in Measures like the National Health Service Act?
Many Conservatives who speak just as the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East has spoken this afternoon have never been worried about having to pay for medicine or professional advice in their lives. They might have had to pay for lawyers, but payment for doctors, dentists, chemists, ophthalmologists and


opticians has never been a matter of concern to them. We are grateful, therefore, for a restatement in 1957 of the Conservative case.
I support wholeheartedly the intentions underlying the Amendment. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) said, it has been extremely difficult within the procedure imposed upon him to frame an Amendment which would adequately meet the case he has put forward. However, I do not know whether he is any more optimistic than I am. I doubt very much whether we can hope for anything more from the present Minister of Health, the latest in a melancholy line since 1951. All of them have imposed a further cut upon the National Health Service during their occupancy of that office.

Sir Frederick Messer: All except Crookshank.

Mr. Griffiths: Crookshank did not last long enough.
Of course, the great occupant of that office was the right hon. Gentleman who is now Minister of Labour. He was promoted to stardom on the basis of revealing from the back benches a knowledge about the minute details of the National Health Service which nobody in either the party opposite or this party suspected. The party opposite was so astonished that the right hon. Gentleman at once had his meteoric rise to fame and was promoted to the Front Bench.
Even that right hon. Gentleman, however, in an unguarded moment, added his testimony to the philosophical approach of the Conservative Party to the National Health Service. He did not say that the charges were necessary merely for an interim period, as my right hon. Friend was obliged to say in 1951 and as he rightly reminded us today. Those charges would have expired and been finished with but for the action taken by the present Government.
The present Minister of Labour did not seek to justify the charges on the grounds of the economic difficulties facing the nation, to which the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East has referred. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was in favour of charges not only on financial grounds, but on social and

ethical grounds. If the Minister of Health really wants to know what are the social and ethical consequences of these charges which he seeks to perpetuate, let him go, for example, to the chain stores.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) referred to the recommendation by the Guillebaud Committee that as a second prority there should be a removal of the charges on spectacles. Very well. Let the Minister of Health go to the chain stores, to Woolworth's, and observe the people who are trying to choose far themselves a pair of spectacles. He will see that the vast majority of them are elderly people. He will find, if he troubles to make inquiries, that the sales of such spectacles have boomed considerably in the past six or seven years. He will find, also, in his Department an abundance of qualified advice that this may well be a contributory cause to the incidence of blindness.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Dennis Vosper): The Minister of Health (Mr. Dennis Vosper) indicated dissent.

Mr. Griffiths: There is such opinion. I do not want to argue it in detail, but it is the opinion of many experts that that is a contributory cause, and I will say why.
A person who has reduced visual standards seeks to remedy those reduced standards of his own volition and without skilled professional advice. It is quite possible that that person may be in the early stages of a serious pathological condition which would be detected if skilled advice were sought. The reason these people do not get the skilled advice is that they cannot meet the charges entailed in obtaining it. Let the right hon. Gentleman deny that if he can.
There are very large numbers of people who are really burdened by the charges. It is no use for the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East saying that the worst-hit people can have recourse to the provisions of the National Assistance Act. This is quite extraordinary. The hon. and learned Member really does not know what is happening in Lancashire, part of which he and I represent in the House of Commons. The fact is that there are a large number of sick and aged people, and people who are temporarily off work, who do not have


recourse to National Assistance and who, if they applied to the National Assistance Board for such help, would be refused it. That is quite apart from the fact that the lower-paid wage earner is nothing like on the scale to which National Assistance applies. It is not true that this is a very small thing. Anyhow, on this side of the Committee, we reject this business of applying different standards in a National Health Service to different sections of the community.
4.30 p.m.
We support the principle of a free National Health Service because we believe that the £200 a week man, the wealthy man, should have appliances free like anybody else, but we reckon that in our system of taxation we shall see to it that he makes an appropriate contribution towards the whole. This is the social gulf between the two sides of the Committee. We, on this side, believe that the highest priority should be granted to the weakest in the community and that the strong should make the maximum contribution.
As to the "cascades of medicine "and the level of expenditure that the Health Service has reached, we should remind ourselves that much of the control of the public money is vested in the hands of professional men and women who are employed in the Service. It should never be forgotten that the cost of drugs is related to the prescribing done by the general practitioner. If the general practitioner had had the courage and integrity —as I am sure many of them have, though some certainly have not—to bear that in mind in treating the sick we should not have had much of the expenditure that we have had in the past.
We, on this side of the Committee, will continue to put forward, when opportunity and time permit, the kind of proposals that we have put forward today to restore the Health Service to the free service that its designers produced and had in mind to expand, and, as soon as possible, take it out of the hands of this melancholy series of Ministers of Health whose function, in the past few years, has been to mutilate what was a grand idea.

Sir Hugh Linstead: The hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) used the phrase "a cut in the National Health Service" in relation not

only to my right hon. Friend, but to his Conservative predecessors as Minister of Health. I am fairly certain that the costs of the Service have steadily increased over recent years and that there has been no sign of a cut in the ordinary financial sense in the financing of the Service.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that there has been a cut in real terms and a very serious cut in the earlier years of this Administration's life in capital expenditure on hospitals, for example.

Sir H. Linstead: If the hon. Member defines "cut" in such a way as to give it a specialised meaning, I have no doubt that he can make a case, but from the ordinary point of view of the use of the word "cut" one would assume that the statement made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange meant that expenditure on the Service had been cut. I am certain that in the past four or five years expenditure has steadily increased. If hon. Members define "cut" in a highly specialised way they can make it prove what they like, but "cut" in the ordinary sense surely means spending less money than previously.

Mr. W. Griffiths: I will define very simply what I mean. There are, in 1957, a number of services which were available to all without charge and which now bear a charge as a result of action by Conservatives.

Sir H. Linstead: In that case, the hon. Member will disagree with my further comment on his speech. As I see it, these charges do not constitute a cut in the Health Service. They constitute providing that Service with funds in a manner that will enable us to expand its services. The practical effect of the Amendment would be to reduce the amount of money which would be available for the expansion of the Health Service. By any ordinary interpretation of "cut", the cut will come if the Amendment is accepted. It will not come if the provisions of the Bill are left as they are.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) asked me about reports of individual cases of hardship. I have no doubt that here and there in the country there are still cases of hardship and of pharmacists who, out


of a general sense of charity, are providing medicine without collecting the shillings, but I personally have not had brought to my notice any cases of hardship in recent months. I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper), both of whom are here, and they told me that in the last two or three months they have had no such cases of hardship brought to their notice. I do not say that they do not exist, but I am objectively reporting my personal experience in the light of what the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East has said.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that pharmacists in many parts of the country have passed very strong resolutions urging the Government to reconsider this very point.

Sir H. Linstead: I have no doubt that such resolutions were passed when the charges were originally introduced, but in the last three or four months cases of hardship have not been brought to my notice.

Mr. Blenkinsop: rose—

Sir H. Linstead: No, I am sorry. I do not think that I should give way again. I think that we have disposed of that point.
We are discussing, on the Amendment, our priorities in the Health Service. The case for the Amendment is based on the fact that the first priority in the Service is to remove the charges. I cannot see that this really is the first priority. Suppose the Amendment had the effect of handing back £5 million, £8 million or £10 million by way of refund of charges. I cannot feel that that would be the best way of spending £5 million or £8 million if the Minister had that money available.
It seems to me still that in the Health Service, ahead of a refund of charges, I should put the mental health service as the first priority for' any money the Minister has available. I should put second the tuberculosis service, because of its impact upon the young and upon public health generally. I should put third the condition of some of our hospitals, particularly those for the chronic sick.
Until I had those three priorities out of the way, I do not think that I should come to refunding money to those who are in work, because it would be those in work who would get their money back. It would be only somewhat low down in the scale of priorities that I should put a refund of several millions of pounds to those people.
This question of priorities dominates the discussion on the Amendment. I am quite clear that the priorities of mental health, of the treatment of tuberculosis, and of the provision of hospitals for the chronic sick should come before refunding charges to those who are in work.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I think of most matters in terms of taxation. This scheme of National Health contributions is a form of taxation. In fact it is a Budget tax which was announced before the Budget. The only additional tax in the Budget was the television duty. This scheme is just as much part of the budgetary framework as anything else that the Chancellor announced at that time.
The Amendment seeks to provide a form of tax relief. The idea is that those who pay charges in one year shall receive either a refund or a set-off against National Health contributions in the following year. The Minister, among other criticism of the Amendment which he may make, will probably tell us that this would be an administrative nightmare. Of course, it would. We do not like this Amendment any more than the Minister does. We would have preferred to achieve its object in a different way; but since we cannot bring forward an Amendment under this Bill to abolish charges, we thought that to have a "back-hander" at the charges, if we could do so within the rules of order, was a perfectly logical standpoint.
We take the view that the charges were introduced into the Health Service at a time when it was thought that the total expenditure on the Health Service was getting too big to be borne out of general taxation. It was the prevailing thought for some time that the two methods of financing the National Health Service were Exchequer grant out of general taxation and the health charges.
Now we have a third leg of support to the National Health Service—the National Health contribution. We think that if we are to have National Health Service contributions then the charges ought to go, but as we cannot propose their abolition as an Amendment to the Bill, we think that it is only right that those who pay contributions and also pay charges should be relieved of the payment of charges by a refund or setoff against the contributions for the following year.
The charges which may be made under the Health Service may. I know, be used as a kind of contribution to the other parts of the Health Service in need of expansion. The hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) said that if he were looking at the priorities of the Health Service, the abolition of the charges would not be the first one. if I were to say that we would make it the first priority, that is not to deny the need for expansion of the Health Service in other directions. especially in regard to the treatment of mental health.
Charges run counter to the very principle on which the Health Service was introduced. That is our objection. It really does not matter whether they are large or small, over a wide area or a narrow one. We think that it is in conflict with the principles of the Health Service that a charge should be made for the services when they are required. We believe that payment for the Health Service should be made at all other times except that at which the services are required.
There may be a difference of opinion as to whether the Health Service should be wholly financed out of taxation or partly financed out of taxation and partly out of a National Health contribution of this or some other type. We should certainly enter into debate on the relative merits of the methods of financing the National Health Service. Those of us who believe in the principle of the original National Health Service are certainly united in the view that we should not make charges for services when required, whether in sickness or in health. There is really no difference between the two. That is why we shall, in due season, be opposing the Motion "That the Clause stand Part of the Bill."

We ask the Minister to consider the conflict in principle between levying charges alongside contributions.
I wish it to be clearly understood that in opposing charges and wanting a rebate of them through contributions we are fully conscious of the need for an expansion of the Health Service in a number of directions, but we do not think that that should be obtained, by means of prescription charges or charges for appliances, etc., provided for under the existing scale of charges under the Health Service.
4.45 p.m.
This is, therefore, perhaps a clumsy way of ventilating our point of view on the relationship between charges and contributions, but it is the only way in which the rules of order enable us to do it, and we hope that when the Minister replies he will have something to say about this important conflict, as we see it, in principle between the levying of charges, the imposition of contributions and the general levy of taxation overall. We ought to get the financing of the Health Service straighter than it is and not drift into a collection of levies and impositions and a kind of empirical hand-to-mouth approach to the National Health Service, which was founded on a noble conception and, as we thought at the time, on very firm financial principles.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) underlined the objection that we have to the point raised by the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead). The hon. Member for Putney used a rather peculiar phrase—and I listened very carefully to him, because I thought that he would be one of the first Conservatives to announce his complete conversion to the idea of a Health Service devoid of charges. I can say that he has managed, in his pronunciation of sentences in that passage, to avoid saying that.
The hon. Member has only argued the point that as a first priority there are other things that come before the abolition of charges. He gave me the impression that as the conscience of the Conservative Party he secretly believes that the charges ought to go some day. I hope that that is the case. I would hope to see a gradual conversion in the ranks opposite that we would wish to see


the day when charges would go no matter what priorities are in the minds of hon. Members opposite at present. I do not think that would be a fair assumption to make at the moment, when one considers the speech made earlier by the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell).
The hon. Member seemed to be advancing in the true light of the former Minister of Health, but one who claimed that the charges were sound not only for financial reasons but also for social reasons. There is, therefore, now a split in the Conservative Party.

Sir F. Messer: Only one.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: One among many others.
I have no wish by any means to discourage the part of the split with which I agree, that is, the part which seeks to try to get the charges abolished. The hon. Member for Putney argued the case about the sequence of priorities. It may well be true that charges from all points of view may not occupy the first priority. I personally do not agree, but it may well be true. I put this to him. If one is to look at priorities within the Health Service and come to that rather awkward conclusion, would it not be fairer to lift one's eyes a little higher and see priorities in their national sense, throughout the whole compass of the Exchequer?
How is it possible to argue that charges, while not being a first priority, are so well behind in the list and are beaten by the Surtax payers? If the hon. Member comes before us as the disciple of priorities—and I submit, that, as a right hon. Friend of mine has said, Socialism is the language of priorities—and maintains that the charges are not first priority, he has to look at all the priorities throughout the system. Does he honestly think that Surtax payers come before health charges? There are numerous other items that could be mentioned in the recent concessions which have been made and in the concessions which have been made over the last five years. They cannot be said to come before health charges.
I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman, occupying the position which he does, can really have health charges so well down the list of priorities with

mental health, tuberculosis and the care of old people just slightly above the health charges, but still below the Surtax payers. The more one analyses the argument about priorities the worse it gets. All these fine and commendable things to which I have referred should stand before the concessions which have been made in favour of the better-off sections of the community.
I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman can honestly hold to such an opinion. I believe that, since he is a believer in priorities, he will look at the matter again. It may be that he will find himself supporting our Amendment. After all, being in the position in which he is, he will, I am sure, shortly receive from the many pharmacists throughout the country excellent testimony about what is going on as a consequence of the charges imposed last December.
Reference was made earlier to the fact that many hon. Members find that people are asking their chemists to give them only one medicine of the four or five medicines prescribed. In the back of a chemist's shop I have seen E.C.10 forms bearing four items, but three of them have been scored out because the person concerned is unable to pay the extra 3s. Since this has happened in my constituency and I know many of the cases, even knowing them professionally, I can say that many of these people are doing without medicines which they ought to have. It vitiates medical practice badly when a patient decides which medicine out of the three or four medicines prescribed for him will be most valuable for him.
The hon. Member for Putney must know that the ordinary person cannot judge reasonably and accurately which of the medicines prescribed are vital to his well-being. Indeed, one assumes that all the medicines prescribed are well meant and that all should be taken. Where even one or two are discounted, how is the person concerned to know which he must have and which he may leave? Also, should a chemist assist a patient in discounting medicines prescribed by a doctor? I wonder what the ethical position of pharmacists is in consequence of such a thing happening.
This matter vitally concerns the hon. Member for Putney and his profession. The Amendment is redemptive in character. The hon. Gentleman can save his


pharmaceutical soul if he supports an Amendment of this kind. He can join the Minister in this matter, because he, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) said, has the opportunity to tell us that he will accept the Amendment, or some form of words embodying the substance of our claim.
Surely the right hon. Gentleman will, in this redemptive mood, say that he realises the imposition placed on many people by the charges, and that, because the National Insurance contribution is to rise in this regard, he will be able to reduce charges in some other sphere. The spheres from which he can choose include surgical appliances, drugs, spectacles and dentures.
The right hon. Gentleman has before him the Guillebaud Report, now the bible of the National Health Service. He now has a wonderful chance to be the first really sound Conservative Minister of Health. The rest have all been good in the financial sense. for they have suited the Conservatives and carried out their philosophy well, but they have been damaging to the National Health Service, which has been the prisoner of the Treasury since 1951.
The Minister will probably tell us that he has argued this with the Treasury and has failed miserably. or he will put it in such a keenly diplomatic way that even though he does not say that to us direct we shall all know about it. The political commentators will say, "Here is a confidential agent for the Health Ministry working against the Treasury."

Mr. William Ross: My hon. Friend is taking too much for granted in respect of the Minister of Health. The right hon. Gentleman is not the only Minister responsible. There is also the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am sure that the Minister of Health will say that he was in favour of accepting the Amendment, but the Secretary of State for Scotland just would not have it all.

Dr. Dickson Mahon: Knowing the Scottish Ministers responsible for health matters, I am delighted to be able to deal with Scottish affairs through the Minister of Health. I much prefer to deal with the right hon. Gentleman. I find it more

awkward to deal with my own people. Whatever I say to the right hon. Gentleman about health services applies for the purposes of this argument not only to England and Wales, but to Scotland as well.
If he has had negotiations and has failed, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say something which will allow the political commentators to say, "We have a Minister of Health with a backbone. Here is a man who is able to stand up to the Treasury. On this occasion he has been unsuccessful in securing a concession from the Treasury, but we have high hopes that if the Treasury puts any more pressure on the Ministry of Health the Minister will stand firm or resign.
On the other hand, it may be that the right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to do so because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East suggested, he has not argued the case with the Treasury. If that is true, the right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself and has no right to be Minister of Health. He would be completely blind to the reports of his officers if he did not know that there is a great deal of anguish over the prescription charges.
There is the British Medical Association, with whom the right hon. Gentleman is on such friendly relations at present. What is its opinion about charges? Is it against the charges solely on administrative grounds because the doctors do not want to operate such charges? Not at all. The resolution passed by the B.M.A. stated that, in relation to the practice of medicine, the charges are unsound and unworthy of the country. The Medical Practitioners' Union is also on record against the charges. In fact, the two bodies representative of doctors are against the charges on strictly professional grounds. I cannot believe that there is not already in the Ministry sufficient evidence to show that the charges are wrong, and I am convinced that the Minister ought to make a concession.
The hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) said that the amount involved might run to about £100 million.

Mr. Philip Bell: I did not say that. I asked whether, supposing it went to £100 million, the hon. Gentleman would use the same argument. All he said was


that it would not be £100 million. and he did not answer the point. Would he say that it would cost £100 million?

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The hon. and learned Gentleman has rescued himself now by making the point hypothetical. but at the beginning I did not get the impression that it was hypothetical. He referred to £100 million, and his subsequent words suggested to me that he was as remote from the problem itself.
5.0 p.m.
The fact is that these charges cost about £5 million, which is the estimated charge for prescriptions plus a very small amount for surgical instruments and other services of different kinds. We are dealing with what are, in fact, infinitesimal amounts compared with the Votes for the Army and the Navy or, indeed, compared with the large tax reliefs given in the recent Budget.
These are such fiddling amounts that the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to wonder whether they are worth while arguing about in relation to the social misery consequent upon them. If he feels that, socially and ethically, the charges ought to remain then, surely, he would admit that there are certain charges, such as prescription charges, which hit the community harder than others. Therefore, I hope that whatever pressure he can put on his Minister he will put in order to get a remission of a charge of this kind.
I hope that the Minister will look at the Amendment reasonably and will be able to say that he can see his way towards meeting it, at least in some respects. If he cannot, he will simply be adding his name to the other two Ministers of Health who preceded him and who have done such a lot of damage to the whole concept of the National Health Service.

Mr. Vosper: I am certainly not going to take the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) to task for referring to what he called the inadequacy of the Amendment because I realise the difficulties involved in framing an Amendment of this nature. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that, of course, its weakness lies in the fact that it would not help those who are

the most deserving because such people either do not pay contributions or get a refund of the charges from the National Assistance Board.
Persuasive as the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends were, he will not be surprised when I tell him that I do not intend to accept the Amendment because it is contrary to the intention of the Bill, which is that contributions should be paid by all insured persons, irrespective of charges. I am not quite certain whether right hon. and hon. Members opposite realise that the Amendment apparently does not include prescription charges as being subject to refund. if they have prescription charges in mind, it would, I am advised, be necessary to refer to the 1949 Act as well as to those Measures referred to in the second Amendment.
I gather that the purpose of the Amendment is to include prescription charges as well as charges for spectacles and dentures and dental treatment. Therefore, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) pointed out, it has to be considered in reference to the cost. The estimated yield for the current year, 1957–58, is, for spectacles, £6·3 million, for dentures and dental treatment, £9·5 million, hospital charges other than bed charges, £·5 million, prescription charges, £13·8 million, making a total for the current year of £30·1 million. If the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) considers that to be a fiddling amount, then he is a wealthier man than I thought he was. To me, as the Minister of Health responsible for the Service, it is a large amount.

Mr. Ross: Is that for England and Wales or for England, Wales and Scotland?

Mr. Vosper: The figures refer to Great Britain as, indeed, do all my arguments.
It therefore follows that if I accepted the intention of the Amendment it would reduce the money available for the Health Service by the equivalent amount, or, alternatively, would increase the burden on the general taxpayer by the same amount.
In my Second Reading speech, I pointed out to the House that the Financial Memorandum to the 1946 National


Health Service Bill anticipated that the contribution from Exchequer funds towards the Service would amount to 72·4 per cent. of the total. In 1949–50 that percentage rose to 76·3 per cent., and last year to 80·2 per cent. of the total.
The point that I wish to make to the Committee is that the total income from contributions under the Bill in a full year, together with the total income received from charges, would make the Exchequer contribution 74·1 per cent., still well above the figure envisaged in the Financial Memorandum to the original National Health Service Bill and not much below that for the first full year of the working of the Bill.
As a result of this Bill, contributions in a full year will bring in 11½ per cent., and charges, which are the subject of the Amendment, will bring in 51½ per cent. The point that I particularly want to make is that those two items together come to just over 17 per cent., which will still be less than the 20 per cent. anticipated in the Financial Memorandum to the original Bill. As I have already said the Exchequer contribution will be more than the anticipated figure.
The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East quite correctly quoted my reference on Second Reading. I said that, generally speaking, I was in favour of the principle that those who were fit and well should pay for those who were sick. I agree. If the imposition of the charge meant that those who are sick would have to meet a large proportion of the cost of the Service, I would, of course, have to accept the Amendment. But the proportion falling on the Exchequer is still nearly three-quarters of the whole, those who are fit and well pay a further 11½ per cent and the proportion borne under the charging scheme by those who are sick is still only 5½ per cent. of the total cost. Therefore. I do not think that my Second Reading speech is invalidated because I cannot see my way to accept the Amendment.
If the right hon. Gentleman had gone a little further and suggested that instead of doubling the contribution, the Bill should treble it to cover the loss of £30 million from removing charges, I should. of course, have had to consider that request. But the Amendment does not do that, It merely asks me to remove the charges. The hon. Member for Sowerby

(Mr. Houghton) used the words "administrative nightmare." I had not thought of that, and I wondered why I had not, but the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East, who has been Minister of Health, will realise that, even had I been in favour of the Amendment, it would be administratively almost impossible to do what it requires. The patients would have to keep a record of their charges and the contributors would have to incur either different rates of contributions or else the same rate of contributions for a differing period. In any case, to administer a scheme of this nature, or anything approximating to it, would be a matter of extreme complexity. Therefore, for this further reason, I feel unable to accept the Amendment.
There is a further point, which is that the provision of finance was, I think, not the only reason for the introduction of charges under the scheme. Both my predecessors and right hon. and hon. Members opposite have made this point on previous occasions. The charges under the scheme, as well as being a means of raising revenue, are a means of canalising the available resources, which we accept are limited, to those sections of the Service which need expanding— the point so well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead)— and, furthermore, of preventing abuse such as over-prescribing or, perhaps, over-concentration on dentures at the expense of dental treatment.
I do not believe that the policy in that respect has been unsuccessful, because for the year just ended the number of dental courses, as opposed to the provision of dentures, was 10 per cent. higher than the figure for the year prior to the introduction of dental charges. I think the Committee knows that children, the all-important class, are now getting 30 per cent. of the total dental courses as compared with only 7 per cent, before the introduction of the charges. As a result of charging, there has been a tremendous switch of resources to the priority and needy classes.

Mr. W. Griffiths: Can the Minister tell us how charging the patient could prevent over-prescribing?

Mr. Vosper: So far as dental treatment is concerned, the charging policy has


meant a switch of resources away from dentures to the more important work of conservative dental treatment.

Mr. E. G. Willis: That has nothing to do with the question asked.

Mr. Vosper: The answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) is that the charging policy was designed in part to switch the resources to where they were most needed.
It was the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange who raised the question of sight testing. I would agree that we should not at this stage anticipate what may or may not be in the forthcoming opticians' Bill. He made the point, and I accept it, that there may be cases when old people are deterred from going for sight tests because they can get cheap pairs of spectacles, but in the last year, 1956–57, the number of sight tests in this country—I am speaking of the United Kingdom— was an all-time record. There was a concentration on the most deserving categories.
Prescriptions have been the subject of several speeches. I must disagree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Greenock that the prescription charge is causing grave hardship, because the advice that I have received— and I have taken great trouble to get this advice— is to the contrary. There have been cases of hardship, but, as I have told the Committee, I will always take up individual cases. That, as one hon. Member knows, is not always unsuccessful. Though there have been cases of hardship, I believe that they are exceptions, not the rule, and I have no evidence, unpopular though the prescription charge is, that it is at present causing hardship.
The number of prescriptions on a per capita basis in December, 1956, the first month of the new charging policy, was exactly the same as the average number of prescriptions, on a per capita basis, in 1949. In 1949 hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were tending to suggest that there was over-prescribing. What was right in 1949 is surely right now. I do not accept that prescriptions were unduly limited in the first month of the new charging policy.
For all these reasons—because money is needed to develop the Service, because

the proposal would be an administrative nightmare, because there is sense in having a charging policy to divert resources to where there is the greatest need—I am unable to accept the Amendment, and I ask the Committee to reject it.

Mr. Marquand: The reply of the right hon. Gentleman was, I am afraid, very much as we expected. Of course, we are bound to agree with him that technically what we propose would be administratively, if not impracticable, at least very difficult. We are bound to admit, as I did in my previous speech, that it would not help the most deserving. Nevertheless we are very disappointed at the rejection of the main idea that we have put forward, that if we now introduce a special contribution to be paid by persons fit, well and working, we ought to take the opportunity at least to reduce some of the charges which have been found in practice to be unfair and most objectionable.
We hoped that the right hon. Gentleman could have advanced a little way towards us. We have had an excellent debate, and my hon. Friends behind me have put some extraordinarily interesting arguments and examples of the way in which these charges are opposing the purposes of the National Health Service. In reply, the Minister treated us to what was very largely a Treasury argument. It was not a health argument. It was a Treasury argument, the argument of what percentage should come from taxes and what percentage should come from charges or contributions. It was purely and entirely a Treasury argument.
5.15 p.m.
Even on that ground we challenge it, but we feel that the arguments that we have put in favour of immediately beginning to reduce charges which are in existence are overwhelming. They have not met with an adequate response, and we must divide the Committee. We no longer accept the argument, though, I admit, it can be quoted from speeches that we have made in the past, that charges would divert the resources—or, as the Minister put it, would canalise the resources—of the National Health Service into the right channels. We do not believe that any more. We believe it possible to find other methods, like Lord Cohen's various committees, through, for


instance, the issue of advice to general practitioners about prescribing. There are far better ways of avoiding any abuses which may have occurred in prescribing than by levying charges on the old, sick and infirm. I could go on, but I shall not, because I think we have had a good debate on this subject, and that we have succeeded in establishing very clearly

what the difference is between the two sides of the Committee. We feel that we must divide the Committee on the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 162, Noes 207.

Division No. 106.
AYES
[5.16 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Paton, John


Albu, A. H.
Hale, Leslie
Pearson, A.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pentland, N.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hamilton, W. W.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hannan, W.
Popplewell, E.


Balfour, A.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hastings, S.
Probert, A. R.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Hayman, F, H.
Proctor, W. T.


Benson, G.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Rankin, John


Beswick, Frank
Herbison, Miss M,
Redhead, E. C.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Reeves, J.


Blackburn, F.
Holmes, Horace
Reid, William


Blenkinsop, A.
Houghton, Douglas
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Blyton, W. R.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bowles, F. G.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Ross, William


Broekway, A. F.
Hunter, A. E.
Royle, C.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercllffe)
Short, E. W.


Burke, W. A.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Janner, B.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Skeffington, A. M.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Carmichael, J.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Chapman, W. D.
Lawson, G. M.
Sparks, J. A.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Lewis, Arthur
Sylvester, G. O.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Cove, W. G.
Moban, Dr. J. Dickson
Tomney, F.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S,)
MacColl, J. E.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Crossman, R. H. S.
McGee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Weitzman, D.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Mainwarning, W. H.
Welts, Percy (Faversham)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Mallaliou, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Welts, William (Walsall, N.)


Deer, G.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
West, D. G.


Delargy, H. J.
Mason, Roy
Wheeldon, W. E.


Donnelly, D. L.
Mellish, R. J.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Messer, Sir F.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Dye, S.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wigg, George


Ede, Rt. Hon. J, C.
Moody, A. S.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Morrison, Rt. Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Moss, R.
Willey, Frederick


Fienburgh, W.
Moyle, A.
Williams, David (Neath)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mulley, F. W.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Gibson, c. W.
Oliver, G. H.
Winterbottom, Richard


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oram, A. E.
Woof, R. E.


Greenwood, Anthony
Orbach, M.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Owen, W. J.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Grey, C. F.
Paget, R. T.
Zilliacus, K.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Paling, Rt- Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)



Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Pargiter, G. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Barter, John
Bossom, Sir Alfred


Aitken, W. T.
Baxter, Sir Beverley
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Boyd-Carpenter, R. Hon. j. A.


Arbuthnot, John
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Boyle, Sir Edward


Ashton, H.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, 8.)
Braine, B. R.


Atkins, H. E.
Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)


Balniel, Lord
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Barber, Anthony
Body, R. F.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry




Brooman.White, R. C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Page, R. G.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hornby, R. P.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Burden, F. F. A.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florenoe
Pitman, I. J.


Butler, Rt. Hn.R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Campbell, Sir David
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pott, H. P.


Carr, Robert
Hyde, Montgomery
Powell, J. Enoch


Cary, Sir Robert
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Profumo, J. D.


Channon, Sir Henry
Iremonger, T. L.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Chiohester-Clark, R.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rawlinson, Peter


Cole, Norman
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Redmayne, M.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cooke, Robert C,
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Cooper, A, E.
Keegan, D.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Rippon, A. G. F.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Kerr, H. W.
Robertson, Sir David


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kershaw, J. A.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, col. O. E.
Kimball, M.
Robson-Brown, W.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Kirk, P. M.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Cunningham, Knox
Lagden, G. W.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Currie, G. B. H.
Lambton, Viscount
Russell, R. S.


Davies, Rt.Hon.Clement(Montgomery)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Leavey, J. A.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Spearman, sir Alexander


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Speir, R. M.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Elliott,R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne.N.)
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Errington, Sir Eric
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Longden, Gilbert
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Fell, A.
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Finley, Graeme
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Stoddart-Scott, col. M.


Fisher, Nigel
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Storey, S.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stuart, Rt. Hon James (Moray)


Fort, R.
McAdden, S. J.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
McCallum, Major Sir Duncan
Summers, Sir Spencer


Freeth, Denzil
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Godber, J. B.
McKibbin, A. J.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Goodhart, Philip
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Cower, H. R.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Teeling, W.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Temple, John M.


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Green, A.
Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Grimston, sir Robert (Westbury)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maddan, Martin
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Gurden, Harold
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Vane, W. M. F.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marshall, Douglas
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mathew, R.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Mawby, R. L.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Harrison, Col. t. H.(Eye)
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M' lebone)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Wall, Major Patrick


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Hay, John
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Nieholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Nugent, G. R. H.



Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Oakshott, H. D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hill, John S. (Norfolk)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Mr. Wills and Mr. Bryan.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Miss Margaret Herbison: We have attempted to amend Clause 1, but we have failed. None the less, we want to have a discussion on it, because it is the Clause which carries out the principle of the Bill. During the Second Reading debate, I made it clear that we on this side felt that it was a Bill which should not be handled by the Minister of Health, but that the proposal which it contains ought to have been in the provisions of the Budge

and be put in a Finance Bill. However, since the Minister of Health has accepted responsibility for the Bill, I wish to complain at the absence of the Secretary of State for Scotland during the discussion of it.
This Bill affects Scotland, just as it affects England and Wales. We have a Secretary of State for Scotland, who is responsible for the health of Scotland. He has three Joint Under-Secretaries of State, one of whom, one assumes is in charge of health in Scotland. We cannot get one of that galaxy of Scottish


Ministers to sit on the Government Front Bench and listen to the arguments which have been put forward.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Perhaps they do not like the Bill.

Miss Herbison: That may be, but if they do not like the Bill that is all the more reason why they should be sitting on the Front Bench, listening to the debate, in order to learn whether they can find arguments from this side which would help them in any fight which may be put up to annul the provisions of the Bill. I hope that the Minister of Health will carry that message to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the Joint Under-Secretaries of State.
We oppose Clause 1 because, for the first time in the history of the National Health Service, it provides for a completely separate contribution for the Health Service, the intention being to have a contribution for the Health Service and a contribution for other services. We oppose it also because not only is there to be this additional contribution from our people, but our people are at the same time, according to the Minister in his reply to the Amendment, contributing over £30 million in charges this year towards the financing of the National Health Service.
In trying to make out his case for the extra contribution and for the continuance at the same time of the Health Service charges, the Minister quoted the White Paper on Social Insurance, published in 1944. Fortunately, I have that White Paper with me. I find that very little indeed is said about these contributions. I find, in page 37. beginning at paragraph 168, a section headed "The finance of the scheme." We have to reach paragraph 170 to find what is said about the finance of the scheme for the National Health Service, and there we are told:
 Towards the cost of the National Health Service, insured men and women will contribute 10d. and 8d. a week respectively 
and it goes on to say that:
 Of this, the employer (where there is one) pays 1½d.
That, except for a sentence giving the reason for the 1½d. payment by the employer, is all that I can find said about the financing of the Service. We are

given a table of what was expected to be the cost of the National Health Service, and I find that for 1945 it was considered that the figure would be £148 million. In the next column, the figure for 1955 is given as £170 million.

Sir F. Messer: That is a Conservative White Paper.

Miss Herbison: Exactly. For 1965, the figure is put at£170 million, and, going further ahead, for the year 1975 it is again put at £170 million. Yet, at the present time, the cost is running at over £600 million.
That was the weakest part of the Minister's argument, when he tried to offer, as a basis for his argument in favour of an increase, the few words which were said in, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) has pointed out, a Conservative White Paper in 1944. It has been proved absolutely conclusively that what is put in that White Paper has really not come about at all.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Vosper: The hon. Lady must have misunderstood me. In my last speech I referred not to the White Paper of 1944 but to the Financial Memorandum of the 1946 Bill.

Miss Herbison: I am sorry. Even if the right hon. Gentleman were referring to the Financial Memorandum, at that time, as I pointed out in my Second Reading speech, not even the officials—not even the Ministers—had any realisation of the great needs for a National Health Service, just as the people had no realisation.
It is quite wrong at this stage to attempt to bring up to date what was thought in those very early days might be the proportion which came from National Insurance contributions. In the Second Reading debate, the Minister had something to say about that, as had the hon.. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead). The latter tried to make out that there had been a definite statement in the Beveridge Report as to this 19 per cent which would be covered. I have taken very great care to examine the whole of that part of the Report which deals with the National Health Service. The hon


Member for Putney quoted paragraph 287. At the very beginning of that paragraph there are these words:
 There is nothing sacred about the division suggested in this Report; it is no more than a basis for discussion and argument.
It goes on:
 On behalf of insured persons it can be argued that even if the contribution proposed is within the capacity of most adult men, it is not within that of persons with low wages, and that these should be relieved at the cost of the taxpayer or the employer.
That was a very important statement. One of the reasons why we are opposing the provisions of Clause 1 and the First Schedule is the effect they will have on the low-wage earner.

Sir H. Linstead: I think that the hon. Lady must agree that Lord Beveridge's general position was this: he found that the cost of the Health Service was to be about £170 million, applying the best information that he could at the time, and he finally concluded—whether rightly or wrongly, and in the light of all sorts of conflicting ideas—that £40 million of that should come out of contributions.

Miss Herbison: No. That is the very point that I am trying to make. He did not finally conclude that 19 per cent. ought to come out of contributions.
I want to go further. Again, in the same paragraph, it is stated:
…the rates of contribution proposed are even more provisional "ߞ
That was not definitely telling us that what he suggested was what he thought ought to be paid—
…for they depend on views of financial policy and social equity as to which reasonable men may differ…
He continued:
 All that is claimed is that the proposals made here are a fair basis for discussion. and that if the Security Budget is looked at as a whole, the division proposed between the three parties is not on the face of it unreasonable.
Therefore, I think that Beveridge showed very clearly in that paragraph that there were so many considerations to be taken into account that he could not say clearly and definitely that 19 per cent. of the cost of the National Health Service ought to be covered by contributions. I could make a great many other quotations from that Report, but I will not weary the Committee with them.
I advise hon. Members opposite to read the part of the Report which deals specifically with the National Health Service. Then they will realise, just as clearly as I have realised from reading it, that the Government cannot possibly base their reasons for this increase on what was said in that Report. Even if they were able to bring the Report to their support, I would say to the Government that Lord Beveridge and his Committee were not infallible; and we ought, each time we consider these matters, to consider them on their merit.
When my hon. Friends and my right hon. Friend were dealing with the question of the increased contribution and the effect that it would have, coupled with the charges, we had a number of speeches from Members on the back benches opposite. The hon. Member for Putney —and I am most surprised at his attitude on the subject of the prescription charge—pointed out that there may have been some complaints but that in the last few months he and those of his hon. Friends whom he had questioned had had no complaints made to them. The only answer I can give is that the constituents of those hon. Members have come to the conclusion that it is not much use complaining to them, since they are wholeheartedly in support of paying for prescriptions, and paying for each item.
My hon. Friends on this side of the Committee—the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) and the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), who is himself a doctor and most interested in these matters —were able to produce evidence that this charge was a very grave hardship on some people and that indeed it was militating against any good work that the doctors might be doing for their patients. There is much evidence to show that there is hardship and that medical difficulties are being caused.
When we add to these present hardships the hardship which will be caused by this increased contribution, it seems to me that the Government are doing something completely wrong in the light of the Budget which the Chancellor of the Exchequer produced a short time ago. The priorities about which we heard so much in the debate today are completely wrong. This is putting burdens on the low-wage earner at a time when the


Government are giving a great deal of money, through the Budget, to those who are already wealthy.
I turn to the question of the National Assistance Board. The hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) told us that where there was hardship, those suffering it could have recourse to the National Assistance Board. That showed clearly that he knew very little about the position of many of his own constituents. Only those whose incomes are so low that they must be on the National Assistance Board scales can have relief at present. There are people in my constituency some of whom will never be able to work again. They include men who have been so severely disabled in the collieries that they cannot work. They need many prescriptions, and they found it a great hardship when this Government put a shilling charge on each prescription. They are finding it an almost. intolerable burden now that the Government have put a shilling charge on each item of the prescription.
One old man has no other source of income but his industrial injuries benefit, or what is now known as his disability pension, for himself, his wife and two children, and he has to pay 1s. for every item on his prescription. I wish that hon. Members opposite would try to get to know what are the grave hardships of other people before they take part in supporting a Measure such as this.
I would say to the Minister that, as Minister of Health, he ought to have opposed this Bill very strongly, and should have made his opposition known to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Cabinet, but he tells us that he did not oppose it. He tells us that he is in support of the Measure, because of the priorities, and because whatever money comes in as a result of the Bill will help in the development of the Service elsewhere. I say to him that as a result of the combined charges and this increased contribution, it may be that we shall need even more hospital places than we have at the present time, and that the whole purpose of the provisions in this Bill will be sabotaged because of the increase in illness in the country.
I have my priorities, and we on this side of the Committee have our priorities,

not only in regard to the National Health Service, but in respect of our social services and in what should be done for our people. Rather than put this extra burden on our people, I would say, as I said on Second Reading, that if the Government had their priorities right, if they were interested in the well-being of our people, these provisions would not have come before us. They would have said that the National Health Service had far greater priority than have Surtax payers in this country at present.
That is the difference between the priorities on this side of the Committee and the priorities of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. We oppose Clause 1 completely. I hope that my hon. Friends will give many more reasons for our opposition, and we shall certainly carry that opposition to a Division.

Mr, W. Griffiths: I listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), in which she so ably gave examples of the lack of knowledge on the benches opposite of the effect of these charges on lower-paid workers.
I do not want to repeat the arguments, but I should like to remind the Committee—and it has been said more than once today—that when we were arguing that, along with this increased contribution, there should be a reduction in charges, it was suggested that the people who found those charges a burden could always nave recourse to the National Assistance Board. That is one of the points that was dealt with by my hon. Friend, and we have been seeking to demonstrate by example that anybody in any part of the Committee who advances that kind of argument just does not know the facts.
Further examples of this kind could be given. Let us take the position of people who are in receipt of National Assistance, and consider the effect of charges in the Health Service upon a worker who is temporarily away from work for a week. Let us assume that during the week when he is away from work he breaks his spectacles. It may be that he is totally dependent upon them, and that he is in possession of only one pair. He cannot get from the National Health Service any assistance at all towards the cost of the repair of that appliance. He cannot go to the National Assistance Board—and


here is another anomaly—because, even if he were eligible for National Assistance, under the present Regulations the Board is compelled to tell him that it can give him nothing at all for repairs. Therefore, the unfortunate man must he without that appliance until such time as he returns to work and does sufficient work to earn enough money to pay for its repair.
5.45 p.m.
That may sound a small thing, but it is a real tragedy for the people concerned. I honestly think that there are a number of people who do not know that that is exactly what happens under the present Regulations. Quite apart from the example that I have just given—the man who is off work for a short period—even those who are eligible for National Assistance cannot, under the present Regulations, get anything towards the cost of the repair of such an appliance. Nor are spectacles the only example because there are other appliances which bear charges at present. I do not think we should part with this Clause without some of us reiterating our opposition to the whole policy of the Government, and what is in effect a poll tax on that section of the community. It is something which is anathema to all of us on this side of the Committee.
It is not good enough for the Minister to advance what my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) said was a Treasury argument. What is the validity of an argument advanced in 1957 which, in effect, says, "The percentage of the cost being borne by the Treasury as a grant from the Treasury in 1957 is pretty much the same as that envisaged in the Financial Memorandum attached to the original Bill". Who, in 1946, could envisage what this revolutionary development of the National Health Service would demand in the future? We had to give people an opportunity to behave themselves in using the Service. We had to see what was the extent of neglect from past years.
Some of my right hon. Friends who had the job of administering the Service in its early years were subjected to criticism because often their estimates were wrong. The perfect answer to that is that nobody knew the extent of the

accumulation of years of neglect of our people in health matters. It was found that in many respects the problem was much worse, and that a bigger problem had to be faced than even the most pessimistic amongst us had anticipated. In that there is nothing surprising. It would not astonish me in the least if the estimates made in 1946 were completely inadequate in the light of the knowledge which we now possess in 1957, and we make no apology at all for that.
What we oppose all the time is not any expansion of the Service, but its curtailment, and this business of imposing extra contributions all round is absolutely contrary to the principles of those of us on this side of the Committee. Let me repeat that these principles are that, in the financing of the National Health Service, and indeed of all our social security programme, the greatest contribution towards these national schemes must come from the strong, and the minimum financial burden must be placed on the weak. I heartily endorse the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North, and I am glad to hear that we are going to carry our opposition into the Division Lobby.

Sir F. Messer: I want to make only two points. The first is that I oppose this proposal because it is basically unjust. We are saying in effect that a service which has hitherto been financed almost entirely from national taxation is now to have its basis of finance changed. Once we have started saying that a certain amount of the National Insurance contribution is devoted to a certain service, we may wonder how long it will be before that amount is increased. As the expenditure on the Service increases the contribution may increase.
If I am asked why I consider this proposal unjust, I would remind the Committee that it was believed that the Service would be financed out of national taxation. We are saying that insured people earning £6 a week shall pay a further 8d. per week while those who get £40 per week shall also pay 8d.—exactly the same as people on the lower scale of income. The proposal is unjust, therefore, because those with means are lightly assessed as compared with people who have little means. My first objection, therefore, is that this proposal increases the financial


difficulties rather than solves them by transferring them to he people who should benefit from the Service.
The next point concerns the charges, one aspect of which has not been taken sufficiently into account. In our constituencies we all know people who are on the border line; they do not get National Assistance because they are just above the qualifying figure. If the amount to be paid for prescriptions brings them below that line, they still cannot go on National Assistance. The payment for prescriptions therefore has a deterrent effect in regard to these people going to the doctor.
That is true particularly with people who suffer from certain complaints. Let me take the case that has already been cited. When National Insurance was started by Mr. Lloyd George as far back at 1911, tuberculosis treatment was a free service. When the National Insurance Commission at that time took charge of tuberculosis, sanatorium patients were not assessed according to their means as ordinary patients were in poor law hospitals. The service was entirely free. When the county borough councils took over the work of the boards of guardians, the service was still free.
Then there developed what were first called "tuberculosis dispensaries" and afterwards "chest clinics". People were attracted to the clinics for preventive reasons. The service was completely free. Indeed, during the war we did even more than that. We gave a special grant under Regulation 266T to people who were undergoing treatment for tuberculosis. That was a sum of about 18s. a week. We did everything to help people to get treatment.
The present charges do not exclude tuberculosis patients. If these patients are now deterred from getting treatment it is a bad thing, not only for the patients but for their contacts. Fortunately, T.B. is on the decrease, so perhaps we need not worry too much about the deterrent effect. Provided that other things are equal, we may be able to overcome that effect.
There are other examples. Let us take the case of someone who is getting on in years, and it suffering from post-encephalitis or from Parkinson's disease. These conditions usually require the taking of a large number of tablets over a period. It is very often necessary to

give medicines like vitamin tablets or soporific tablets. The patient will want three or four items on the prescription. How can the patient tell the pharmacist which one of them to omit? It may very well be that the patient's choice will be wrong because of inability to know what the tablets are really meant for. The patient's case may be made more difficult or even made more serious.
For all these reasons we ought to consider, if we are to have a special contribution, whether it should not offset the more serious effects of the charge for prescriptions. My chief objection and reason for opposing the proposal before us is the danger of the Service coming to depend for its finance not on taxation, but on whether a patient has the requisite number of stamps on the card to entitle him or her to treatment.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) wholeheartedly in his condemnation of the Clause and of the new principle which it introduces. The principle can be extended very much to the detriment of the people, simply on the whim of a Chancellor of the Exchequer who happens to find himself hard up for reasons which have nothing to do with the health of the people. but because of Government policy. He can say, "This is costing a lot of money. We will add a bit more to the charges".
I listened to the arguments, and I found no principle about them. All we had was a lot of statistics and percentages of contributions paid in different circumstances. Whatever percentage of contribution is now suggested is entirely arbitrary; there is no principle behind it. I listened to the Minister introducing the Money Resolution, and not a single principle was enunciated in his speech which would persuade people to support his arguments.
When the Minister was at the Treasury at least he tried to look at matters in a humane way, but he has now to depend upon statistics which are related to nothing but expediency. Before we leave the Clause the right hon. Gentleman ought to tell us what is behind it. What are the governing principles? Government ought to be by principle and not by statistics produced at the Treasury by a bright boy behind the scenes. and the


principle ought to be based upon moral considerations.
The Bill, examined from that point of view, is rotten. There are no moral considerations in it at all; in fact, it is grossly immoral. We have been told that £31 million towards the cost of the scheme has been raised by these charges. It seems very unfair to raise money by putting a charge on the unlucky people. It is the first time I have heard that because a person is unlucky he has to be charged. I thought the principle was to help people who were unfortunate, not to charge them because they happen to be unfortunate.
6.0 p.m.
We are to raise an additional £42·1 million under this Bill by a flat poll tax. I had several things to say about that when the Money Resolution was before the Committee. There is no equity in that at all. It is simple for someone who is very wealthy to say to someone who is comparatively well off, "Let us all put a ' bob ' into the kitty," but that is most unreasonable, certainly unfair, and I think it is immoral. As a result of this Bill we are to pay £71 million in ways which to me seem dubious and certainly not in accord with what my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) thought the very noble principles on which this Service was based in the first place.
The National Health Service, as it was conceived and brought into being, captured the minds of all classes of people in this country and people all over the world, because, almost for the first time in history, we were trying to do something which was out of accord with capitalist methods of accountancy. We were saying, "We all live together. Let us contribute what we can and distribute it according to need." It was a very fine principle of government, but more and more we are departing from it.
All the usual arguments have been trotted out by the Conservative Party. It is easy for hon. Members opposite to argue that we should pay for these things if we can afford to do so. They are not on the border line, having to pay for these things but to do without a considerable number of other things. They are not in the position of many families to which an extra 8d. or 10d. a week makes all

the difference. Often it makes all the difference between having an extra pint of milk for that family or not having it.
This Bill is a bad Bill, this Clause is a bad Clause, and I am certainly glad that we are to divide against it.

Mr. Marquand: The Clause under discussion implements the main new proposal in the Bill, the establishment of a separate contribution in the National Health Service. Although, unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity of listening to the Second Reading debate, I have read very carefully all that was said by all who took part in it. and particularly what the Minister said.
As I understand from what I read in the speech, the right hon. Gentleman had two main arguments in support of the new proposal. The first we have dealt with already at some length on the Amendment the Committee disposed of a short time ago. The first argument was the fit and well argument, in which the Minister said that people should pay when they are fit and well and receive from the Service when they are unable to work and earn. We have already disposed of the contradictions in that argument coming from that source.
The second argument adduced by the Minister in favour of this new proposal was a very astonishing one. The right hon. Gentleman wanted:
 to take the opportunity to do everything possible to remove the frequent misunderstandings that either all, or none, of the National Health Service is financed by weekly contributions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1957; Vol. 569, c. 993.]
I should be all in favour of removing a misunderstanding about how the National Health Service is financed. The only misunderstanding I ever came across when I was Minister of Health was, not that anyone thought that none of the Service was financed by contributions, but the misunderstanding by which very many people thought the whole of the Service was financed by contributions. I tried again and again, on almost every opportunity I had when making a speech in those short nine months when I was Minister, to destroy that illusion, but, of course, it had very little effect.
It was a very deep-rooted belief, and I think it still is. It has been fostered by the newspapers, although they have been


told dozens of times what the truth is. Again and again they have referred to the National Health Service stamps and suggested to the public that they paid the full cost of the Health Service through their Health Service stamps. That was a mistaken idea, and it had bad results. It created in some minds the idea, "I have paid for it. haven't I? Therefore, I am entitled to this, that and the other ".
In so far as there were exigent demands placed on doctors and others in the Service for services not required, they arose, I think, from that root source—the idea that people paid their Health Service contribution and therefore the sky was the limit, that they ought to have all the medicines, treatment and everything available under the Service. That was a bad thing, and I tried to remove the misunderstanding.
This Bill does not remove that misunderstanding, but just doubles it. It makes it perfectly clear to everyone by a separate stamp that this is a contribution for the National Health Service which makes it twice as much as it used to be. It seems to me that they will be more convinced than ever that the contributions pay for the whole Service. The argument breaks down completely and we are left only with the first argument, which we debated at length and about which I do not propose to advance any more views.
During Second Reading my hon. Friends said they believed that this further tax on insured workers was bound to fall most heavily on lower paid workers, on the fathers of families and those who find it most difficult to make do on their wages. My hon. Friends said then, and have repeated this afternoon, that the Government were reducing the Surtax, which was a progressive tax, and increasing the National Health Service contribution, which was a regressive tax. They increased a regressive tax in order to reduce a progressive tax. On those grounds, chiefly, we objected to the proposal.
I want to draw the attention of the Minister particularly—that is the only reason for which I rose—to the feeling evident on this side of the House during Second Reading, which certainly has not been disposed of by anything which has been said so far this afternoon, that this new charge was the introduction of a new

and dangerous principle. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) said on Second Reading,
 I do not think that this Bill is introduced merely for the sake of getting £40 million.
A little earlier he had said:
 I hope my fears will never be realised, but I see in this Bill the grave danger of a qualification for benefit that will depend upon a contribution to insuranoe."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 8th May, 1957; Vol. 569, c. 1042.]
That may have been pooh-poohed when he said it, but the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd)—I am sorry he is not here this afternoon; he is one of the ablest hon. Members opposite and, if he had his deserts, he might one day become a Member of the Government—said later in the debate:
I believe that the present contribution is inadequate, and we ought to work, albeit by easy stages, towards an arrangement whereby at least one-third of the total cost of the National Health Service is covered by contributions. If we could do that, or something towards it, we should he able to do away with…the chargesߪ"—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 8th May, 1957; Vol. 569, c. 1065.]
We hope that in his reply the Minister will be able to deal with this argument. Will he deny categorically the validity of the fear expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) on Second Reading—the fear that this is the introduction of new insurance principle into the National Health Service and that as time goes on opportunity will be taken more and more to increase the size of the contribution and to make the receipt of benefit under the Service more and more depend on the payment of a direct flat-rate contribution?
Is that the Government's intention? If not, will the Minister repudiate the view expressed by the hon. Member for Cheadle? We want an answer today, and we hope that we shall get a clear and categorical answer to the suspicions which have been raised in the minds of my hon. Friends and to the confirmation of those suspicions expressed on the last occasion by the hon. Member for Cheadle.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I want in no way to prolong the debate, but there are two points which I want to raise. The first arises out of our earlier debate in Committee. I had hoped that the Minister


would not regard the comments made by the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) about the pharmacists as being the view of pharmacists generally about the imposition of the charges.

Sir H. Linstead: I was very careful to say that no correspondence had reached me in my capacity as a Member of this House.

Mr. Blenkinsop: It is important that that should be made clear, because I, for one, have had very strong representations from pharmacists in my division.
The second point which I wanted to raise was this: I assume that the Ministry have been able to give proper consideration to the whole question of priorities in the Service and that some effective research has been carried out in the Department. It has always been agreed amongst many of us that one of the difficulties one faced in the early days of the Service was the lack of adequate information about trends and developments within it. It was very difficult to plan development of the Services as one would like without thta range of information which one wanted.
Here I may be taking objection to the opposition which one of my hon. Friends seemed to make to statistics. I am sure he was not opposing the collection of statistics generally but was taking objection to the idea that statistics should be applied without regard to principle. I and, I am sure, many of my hon. and right hon. Friends take the view that there is need in the Ministry of adequate research and statistics. One of the recommendations of the Guillebaud Committee was that this should be instituted, and after that recommendation had been made we understood that the Ministry had made an appointment, although I do not think it could be regarded as a special department of the Ministry, as is called for in the Guillebaud Report. I am trying to stress that within all our health work there is a great need for some careful evaluation of the work which is being done.
6.15 p.m.
To give one example, it is astonishing that even now we know very little about the value to the community of the hospital work which we are doing in this country. I think the Chief Medical

Officer of Health has made the point in one of his recent reports that our knowledge of what happens to patients after they leave the hospital is remarkably slight even after all these years. I am asking whether we are satisfied that we have made a sufficient estimation. Have we material to make our estimates and to estimate the value of the Service which we already have at our disposal? Is the Department able to make its decisions, including this decision with which we have been confronted, upon adequate information? I suggest that the Ministry of Health is still in the difficulty that it cannot provide an adequate background of information upon which decisions of this kind are put before us. The Guillebaud Committee made that very clear. In its recommendations it said that it was
 Of the opinion that the knowledge at present available about the working of the National Health Service is inadequate and should be considerably extended and improved, since it is only on the basis of such knowledge that the right decisions can be made for the future development of the Service.
All of us who have had some experience of this Department have found the danger of taking decisions about development without that background knowledge which, I think, everyone regards as essential. I very much fear that the Department has not been able to continue to build up that adequate background of knowledge which we wish to see, but instead is still taking this kind of decision in order to collect together more finance for the scheme without any adequate review of the whole background of the working of the Service.
I know that this is a little outside the immediate context, but I ask the Minister in his reply to bear in mind that it is relevant and to tell us the importance which he attaches to the research and statistical part of his Department.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: I will not detain the Committee for very long, but I should like to add my voice in protest to that of my hon. Friends. There is strong feeling amongst the lower-paid workers about this increase in the contribution. It involves another 10d. a week for a man, 8d. a week for a woman and 6d. a week for a boy or girl. Some of these people are among the lower income groups of workers. There are still people in this country not earning more than


£6 a week. Some women are earning less than £5 a week. The extra contribution means an extra charge on their small incomes.
The Bill will give the Chancellor of the Exchequer over £40 million a year, and the money should be used to improve the Service. There are still to be charges for spectacles, for teeth, for invalid boots and for other appliances, and it is therefore clear that the extra £40 million which is to be gathered from the workers of the country will not be used for improving the National Health Service.
We are very proud of our National Health Service. I remember the hospital services when I served on a board of guardians in the years between 1925 and 1930 and the great change that has taken place. Hospitals were often stinted for money, many lacked X-ray apparatus. and many lacked the modern equipment which we see in the splendid hospitals of today. The National Health Service has brought about this great change. But Conservative Party Election manifesto said that the Conservative aim was to extend, expand and improve the Health Service; but we now find that the Government have limited the Service by charges on surgical appliances and have put on a prescription charge of 1s. for each item. I know that the person on National Assistance can get a refund, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) has said, there is a margin just short of National Assistance where the extra prescription charge imposes a very heavy burden.
I therefore add my protest against these extra contributions which are not to be used for improving the Service or removing charges for appliance and prescriptions, which merely give the Chancellor £40 million to pay for the tax relief to the highest income group.

Mr. Vesper: As has been made clear, this Clause contains the substance of the Bill. I am sure that the Committee would not want me to repeat the speech which I made on the Ways and Means Resolution, or that which I made on Second Reading, but there are just one or two points to which I should reply.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) referred to the absence of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I will, of course, bring to the notice of my right hon.

Friend any points that refer specifically to Scotland in what is otherwise a United Kingdom Bill. She will, however, have noticed that the Joint Under-Secretary of State listened to her speech.
The hon. Lady referred, as have other hon. Members, to the Beveridge Report. I have, of course, studied that Report on many occasions. The only conclusion I have ever drawn from it, in introducing this Bill, is that the Beveridge Report was not against the contributory principle. In fact, that contributory principle was accepted by the party opposite when, in 1946, there was introduced, first, the Financial Memorandum to the Bill, and, finally, the National Health Service Bill which became the National Health Service Act of 1948.
That principle was established as far back as 1946. and has been maintained, in effect, ever since. I accept that there is nothing sacrosanct in the proportion given in that Financial Memorandum, but it did so happen that in 1946, as I have already told the Committee, the percentage to he financed by contributions was 20 per cent. That figure was never realised, and it recently shrank to 6 per cent.
But Her Majesty's Government believe that the principle contained in the Beveridge Report—which the party opposite accepted and maintained throughout its years of office—is correct; that there should be a contributory element towards the finances of the National Health Service. They believe, further, that if 20 per cent. was thought fit and proper in 1946, a contribution that would now bring in just over 11½ per cent. is not unreasonable today. That is the percentage represented by a contribution of 1s. 8d. to be provided for each employed man.
That is the first reason for this Bill: that there shall be a contributory element towards the financing of the Health Service paid by those who are fit and well towards those who are sick. In fact, the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) suggested that the contribution should be even larger, because he quite rightly said that the figures produced ten or twelve years ago vastly underestimated the cost of the Service. In those days, the figures anticipated a total national cost of £174 million, to which


there should be a 20 per cent. contributory element.
As hon. Members know, that total figure has now risen to £690 million, so there would be an argument,on that basis, for increasing the contributory charge above even that envisaged in the Bill. The Government have not thought fit to do that, but have decided to double the figure to keep it in line with what was thought reasonable in those early days.
The hon. Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) made an interesting speech. If I may say so on this particular occasion, and as I think the Committee knows, the National Health Service owes him a tremendous debt of gratitude for what he has done as Chairman, until recently, of the Central Health Services Council. I know that he is anxious, as I hope he will believe that I am, to see the Service develop. I was disappointed, therefore, to note that he was not in support of the contributions, although he must know that as there must be a limit on the amount of national finance provided a small increase must surely be welcomed by anybody believing in the Service.
A point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) is that for the first time this Bill establishes a separate charge. The reason is that we are anxious to see established in the minds of the public the principle that there is a separate contribution towards the National Health Service. I fully accept, as he made quite clear, that the public are confused on two grounds: either they think that there is no contribution towards the cost of the Service, or else that it is

entirely financed by contributions. I hope to be a little more successful than he—although I may be optimistic—and, during the latter part of the year when this Bill has, I hope, been put on the Statute Book, to be able to establish in the public mind that a small proportion only of the total cost is financed by direct contribution.

I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) about priorities. I accept, in principle, what he said, but he will forgive me if, on this occasion— which, I think, is hardly the appropriate one—I do not go further into priorities of expenditure.

I was asked by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East to give an assurance that this was not the thin end of the wedge; that this Measure did not begin a cycle of increasing contributory elements. All I would say is that to increase the charge by any amount above that stated in the Bill would require further legislation. To introduce legislation into this House is not an easy matter, and I cannot believe that Her Majesty's Opposition would lightly let it go through. I therefore think that that assurance, that a further increase would require a further Bill, should be the answer to his question. On those grounds, I should like to think that the Committee might come to a decision and approve this Clause.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 199, Noes 159.

Division No. 107.]
AYES
[6.28 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement(Montgomery)


Aitken, W. T.
Bryan, P.
Deedes, W.F.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Burden, F. F. A.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Arbuthnot, John
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Doughty, C. J. A.


Atkins, H. E.
Butler, Rt. Hn.R. A. (Saffron Walden)
du Cann, E. D. L,


Baldwin, A. E.
Campbell, Sir David
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)


Barter, John
Carr, Robert
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Cary, Sir Robert
Elliott,R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne.N.)


Beamish, Mai. Tufton
Channon, Sir Henry
Errington, Sir Eric


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Cole, Norman
Fell, A.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Finlay, Graeme


Bishop, F. P.
Cooke, Robert
Fisher, Nigel


Body, R. F.
Cooper, A. E.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Fort, R.


Boyd-Carpenter, R. Hon. J, A.
Corfield Capt. F. V.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Godber, J. B.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Crowder, Sir John (Finehley)
Goodhart, Philip


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Cunningham, Knox
Gower, H. R.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Currie, G. B. H.
Graham, Sir Fergus




Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Green, A.
Longdon, Gilbert
Remnant, Hon. P.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Robertson, Sir David


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Gurden, Harold
McAdden, S. J.
Rodgers, John (Scvenoaks)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
McCallum, Major Sir Duncan
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Russell, R. S.


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
McKlbbin, A. J.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Hay, John
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Speir, R. M.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Stanley, capt. Hon. Richard


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Maddan, Martin
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hill, John S. (Norfolk)
Marshall, Douglas
Storey, S.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mathew, R.
Stuart, Rt. Hon James (Moray)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hornby, R. P.
Mawby, R. L.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Horobin, Sir Ian
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Teeling, W.


Hyde, Montgomery
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Temple, John M.


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Nairn, D. L. S.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Iremonger, T. L.
Neave, Airey
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Ti|ey A, (Bradford, W.)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Turner, H. F. L.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Oakshott, H. D.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Keegan, D.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Page, R. G.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Kerr, H. W.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Kershaw, J. A.
Partridge, E.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Kimball, M.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wall Major Patrick


Lambton, Viscount
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pitman, I. J.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Leavey, J. A.
Pott, H. P.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Powell, J. Enoch
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Raikes, Sir Victor
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Rawlinson, Peter



Linstead, Sir H. N.
Redmayne, M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Barber and Mr. Hughes-Young.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Dye, S.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Albu, A. H.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Flenburgh, W.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Awbery, S. S.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Lawson, G. M.


Benson, G.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Beswiok, Frank
Gibson, C. W.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Lewis, Arthur


Blackburn, F.
Greenwood, Anthony
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.


Blenkinsop, A.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R,
Mabon, Dr. j. Dickson


Blyton, W. R.
Grey, C. F.
MacColl, J. E.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Griffiths, David (Rother valley)
McGhee, H. G.


Bowles, F. G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Brockway, A. F.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mahon, Simon


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hale, Leslie
Mainwaring, W. H.


Burke, W. A.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hamilton, W. W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hannan, W.
Mason, Roy


Callaghan, L. J.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Mellish, R. J.


Carmichael, J.
Hastings, S.
Messer, Sir F.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hayman, F. H.
Mitchison, G. R.


Chapman, W. D.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Monslow, W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Herbison, Miss M.
Moody, A. S.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Holmes, Horace
Morrison,Rt.Hr.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)


Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Houghton, Douglas
Moss, R.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Moyle, A


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Mulley, F. W.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hunter, A. E.
Oliver, G. H.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercllffe)
Oram, A. E,


Delargy, H. J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Orbaeh, M.


Donnelly, D. L.
Janner, B.
Owen, W. J.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John(W. Brmwch)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)







Pargiter, G. A.
West, D. G.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Paton, John
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Pearson, A.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Pentland, N.
Skeffington, A. M.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Wigg, George


Popplewell, E.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Snow, J. W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Willey, Frederick


Probert, A. R.
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, David (Neath)


Proctor, W. T.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Rankin, John
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Reeves, J.
Sylvester, G. O.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Reid, William
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Winterbottom, Richard


Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Woof, R. E.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tomney, F.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Viant, S. P.
Zilliacus, K.


Ross, William
Weitzman, D.



Royle, C.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Short and Mr. Deer.

Clause 2.—(CONSEQUENTIAL REDUCTION OF NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Marquand: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance has been attending our debate very assiduously indeed. It would be a very dull day for her if she did not have an opportunity to speak, and I hope that on this Clause she will be able to give the Committee some guidance, at any rate, because the Clause deals with the consequential reduction of National Insurance contributions.
This is the only part of the Bill which deals directly with National Insurance contributions. The idea behind it is that as there is now to be a separate National Health contribution, the amount formerly paid by the National Insurance Fund will go into that National Health contribution, and the contributor who in the future pays for a separate stamp for National Health contributions will have the increased charge included in that stamp and will, in consequence, find that the National Insurance contribution stamp will cost less.
The contribution may be relieved by that. He may say to himself, "I have a new contribution to make, but at least the old contribution is to be reduced." The Clause says that
…the weekly rates of contributions payable under the National Insurance Acts shall be reduced in accordance with the next following subsection.
I should like the hon. Lady to tell us how long she thinks this reduction will last. How long will it be before the National Insurance contribution will

again be increased to the old level, or beyond it?
We had a debate not long ago on the social policy of the Government, which was wound up by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in his very best debating style. In almost a crescendo of fury he gave a long list of improvements which he said the Government had made in our social services. About five out of eght of those improvements consisted of improvements in the National Insurance system.
We agree that there are improvements. We accepted and supported the improvements in the conditions relating to widows and other dependants of National Insurance contributors. But the right hon. Gentleman told us during the debate on the Bill which implemented the recommendations of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on the improvement of the conditions of widows and dependants that the cost one day would have to be made up by increased contributions. So one day we shall have another Bill put before us by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance asking for an increased National Insurance contribution. It seems to me that this is the fair time at which to give the House of Commons warning of that.
This Committee ought to be aware, when it is passing a Clause which purports to reduce the National Insurance contribution, that at some time in the future, probably a very short time ahead, the National Insurance contribution is to be increased, that these new improvements of which the Minister was so proud are not to be financed, through the Treasury, by the taxpayer but are to be financed, once more, by the contributors themselves.
I ask the hon. Lady to give us some indication of the amount of increase that we may expect after these decreases have taken place, and of the time when her right hon. Friend is likely to present them to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(FINANC I A I, PROVISIONS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Miss Herbison: Subsection (2) of Clause 4 deals with how the money is to be distributed to the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland and I wish to know what is in the Minister's mind about that. It is really a question which should go to the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance rather than to the Minister of Health. How is this division to take place? What will be the division between England and Wales, on the one hand, and Scotland, on the other?
Since we are having this separate contribution for the Health Service, it is of the greatest importance that we should know in what proportion the division is to be made. Will all the contributions from Scottish contributors ultimately find their way to the Secretary of State for Scotland to help to finance the Health Service in Scotland. and will all contributions from English and Welsh contributors go to England and Wales? Are we to depart from what is the normal division in these matters, when the money goes to that part of the United Kingdom where there is more illness and disease? This is an important matter, and my question should be answered before we part with the Clause.

Mr. Vosper: I shall be very pleased to answer that question. The basis of apportionment between England and Wales, on the one hand, and Scotland, on the other, will be according to the distribution of the insured population between them. It will be undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in consultation with. my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The procedure will, in

fact, be exactly the same as now appertains to the distribution of the Health Service element in the National Insurance contribution. The existing arrangement will be continued under the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(CORRESPONDING LEGISLATION IN NORTHERN IRELAND.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Marquand: There is a considerable number of hon. Gentlemen who sit for Northern Ireland in the House, not one of whom do I see in his place in this Committee at the point at which the Clause dealing with Northern Ireland arises. As far as I am aware, we have had no contribution at all from those hon. Members during the Committee stage. I hope I am not doing them an injustice; no doubt I shall be corrected if I am wrong.
It is noteworthy that, whereas my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies have taken an active part in the discussion, there has been no voice whatever raised from Northern Ireland. Although the Bill will presumably, according to the provisions of the Clause, apply to Northern Ireland and involve the workpeople of Northern Ireland in the payment of increased contributions, there has been no one present to speak on their behalf.
6.45 p.m.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say whether all we are doing in this Clause is to permit the Parliament of Northern Ireland to pass such legislation, if it is pleased to do so. Does he understand that the Government of Northern Ireland intend to introduce a similar Measure in Northern Ireland? If all I do is to elicit an answer to that question, I shall have done something to help the workpeople of Northern Ireland to get that answer, which is something their own Members of Parliament have not bothered to come and do.

Mr. Vosper: The reason that my hon. Friends are not here in support, I think, is that the Bill does not, in fact, cover Northern Ireland. Separate legislation by the Northern Ireland Parliament is required.
All that this Clause does is to give the permission of the House of Commons, which is required for the Northern Ireland Parliament to legislate in respect of the Crown, since it is otherwise prevented from doing so. I understand that it is the intention of Northern Ireland to enact similar legislation as soon as the permission of the House has been given through Clause 5 of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Miss Herbison: I beg to move, in page 7, line 6, at the end to insert:
(being a day not before the first day of May nineteen hundred and sixty)".
We have put down this Amendment to ensure that, immediately the Bill becomes an Act, the provisions of it will not immediately affect the people of Britain. We have inserted the specific date, 1st May, 1960, in order that a General Election may take place before the provisions of the Bill may operate.
We do that for a number of reasons, but for one in particular. The Government have no mandate whatever from the people of Britain for introducing this Measure. At no time in their propaganda, so far as I can discover, did the Conservatives say to the people, "When we are returned, either in 1951 or in 1955, we shall take steps, first of all, to make a separate Health Service contribution, and secondly, to raise the contribution." I have looked up the statement of Tory policy called "Britain Strong and Free, A Statement of Conservative and Unionist Policy". This was a policy statement issued before the 1951 General Election. Above the name of Winston S. Churchill, I find the words:
 I hope that this book will help our candidates, speakers and workers during the course of the Election.
In other words, this was almost the "bible" for candidates and propagandists before the Election in their efforts to win support for the Tory Party in order to return that party to the House of Commons.
In page 29 of the booklet, there is the heading "Health Services". There is a little over a page devoted to the

Health Services, and I read through what was said to ascertain whether Tory candidates and propagandists were told to inform the British people that there would be a separate contribution and an increase. I find nothing. What I do find, in the second paragraph, is this:
 We hold ourselves free to review and alter the present system of charges in order to establish proper priorities.
Obviously they have reviewed them. As for altering the system of charges, in the years during which we have suffered a Tory Government, they have altered the system of charges; they have kept the system of charges which they found, and they have added many more charges to people when they are really sick.
Then I find this sentence, which is completely contrary to the provisions of the Bill:
 We must meet first, and fully, the needs of mothers, children and the really sick.
In the Bill, we find that even the lowest wage earner is to pay a higher contribution. We on this side attempted to remove the charges. It is the really sick who will suffer by the charges which the Government are imposing.
There is another paragraph which would be amusing if it were not so serious. It says:
They"—
that is, the family doctors—
 have to deal as much with paper as with people. In discussion with the profession, a way must be found to preserve the personal link between doctor and patient and to devise a system of payment which will enable the family doctor both to lead a more satisfactory professional life and to give better service to the public.
I wonder what the family doctors are thinking of the Government and that statement of theirs at the present time. It is only under a Tory Government that we have had any serious threat of the doctors going on strike.
In case the Conservative Party should have said something in 1955, I then turned to "United for Peace and Progress". One knows about the peace and the progress that they have brought us since 1955, but, unfortunately, it would be out of order for me to attempt to show how ludicrous are all the claims made on the first page of this document. Then, I turn to a section entitled "Good Health". The Tory Party did not have as much to say about good health in 1955 as in


1951. They devoted a page or so to various matters, including air pollution as an enemy to good health, which can cause death and various other things. Talking about priorities, they say:
 we rank them higher than free wigs or free aspirins.
The Tory Party are great believers in priorities so long as their choice of priorities hits the weakest in the country. There is not one word in this 1955 prospectus of the Tory Party about the charge that they are now imposing.
It is because we feel so strongly that this is an important principle in the Bill, about which the Tories, in trying to gain votes, said nothing, and because we greatly resent the imposition of this tax upon the poorest in the country, that we say to the Government that if they are an honourable body of men and women, they should accept the Amendment so that the Bill, with all the hardships that it entails, can be deferred until they go to the country with another prospectus—whatever name they give it, they certainly will not he able to call the next one "United for Peace and Progress "—including these charges and see whether they get support for it.

Mr. Willis: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) in the Amendment. It is only fair for the Government to accept our suggestion and wait for a General Election before implementing the Bill so that they will know whether they have support for what they are doing. My hon. Friend need not be surprised at the name that is given to the Tory Party election publications. A Government which can dismiss a hydrogen bomb explosion as a "nuclear incident" is capable of finding any words to bewilder the people about what is really going on.
In the publication to which my hon. Friend has referred, the Tory Party mentioned legislation that it intended to introduce. It mentioned legislation concerning smoke abatement and National Assistance. One thing that it did not mention was these charges. Even when it discussed the hospital services and items more relevant to the Bill, it did not mention that the Conservatives intended to impose these charges. If the Government were anxious to get the people behind them, they could at least postpone the operation of the Bill as we suggest.
I am always suspicious of Tories, Tory Governments and what they are doing. I cannot help feeling that on this occasion what the Government are trying to do is to get an additional £40 million from the working population so that by the time they decide to have a General Election they can have another phoney Budget and give so much back in taxation. The Government are preparing the way and this is one of the ways in which they will do it by getting this £40 million from people, many of whom will find it difficult to meet the cost.
Of course, I may be quite wrong: I should like to think so. One of the ways by which the Government can help to convince me that I am wrong is by accepting the Amendment. I would then say that everything was fair and above board and that the Minister was trying to play fair by the people. It is a very modest Amendment. I am surprised at my hon. and right hon. Friends in wanting to postpone the Bill only until 1960. That is only three years away. As, in any case, the Bill will not come into operation for a while yet, the difference is even less than three years. What is two years in the life of a nation or of the great National Health Service scheme?
Purely out of the kindness of his heart and from a desire to give the Opposition at least one little concession on the Bill —so far, the Government have given us nothing at all—the Minister could say that the Amendment is perfectly reasonable, that it will help to give the people time to consider what the Government are doing and will show that what they are doing is desirable. If the right hon. Gentleman assures us in addition that the Government are not trying to pull a fast one and to pave the way for a possible Tory victory at the next election, that would be a nice speech for him to make and it would be commended highly on this side. By this simple step, he would make his reputation much higher than it is at the moment.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: There is not the slightest element of urgency in the Bill. It is being imposed upon an unwilling people by a Government who are in the position of having to provide certain moneys for purposes entirely outside the Bill. This contribution does not derive from any need in the


Health Service. It is imposed upon the Minister entirely by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is determined that the workers must pay for the £30 million relief of taxation to be given to those in receipt of £2,000 and more a year.
That is the basis of the Bill. It has nothing whatever to do with the purposes of the Health Service. The Minister knows that if one section is to have relief from taxation some other section has to pay for it. In this case, in accordance with their tradition, the Tories have seen to it that the workers will provide relief for those people who receive £2,000 and more a year.
7.0 p.m.
Will the Minister be good enough to be a little more specific than is Clause 6? When do the Government propose to fix the appointed day? Is it this year or next year? I see no hope of the Bill being rejected by the noble Lords in the other place. I make the guess that when the Bill becomes law it will have an appointed day that will correspond with the operation of the Finance Bill this year. I think it a fairly safe bet that the Bill will become law this year if the Government have their way.
I support the eloquent appeal already made to the Minister. Why not accept the Amendment to save embarrassment for the right hon. Gentleman in his own constituency? If the Bill is to become law, let it be deferred to a time when the electors, at a General Election, can express their view upon it and place upon the electorate the responsibility of deciding whether they want a free National Health Service or want to go back to the old contributory system. If the appointed day is in 1960 and not this year, that will save the Minister himself from any embarrassment in his own constituency at the next General Election.
I cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman. If he says that the Government want the Bill because they want to teach the workers that they cannot have something for nothing, that is a Tory attitude that we can understand. It has been part of the psychological approach of the Tory Party to the workers of the country that the only people who can get something for nothing without its affecting their sense of morality are people represented by the

Prime Minister and his colleagues. When it conies to the working class, the party opposite believes that there must be some kind of discipline to remind the workers of their obligations. It is this kind of patronage that offends my sense of equity.
If the Minister argued against the Amendment on that score, however, we could understand it, though it is an untenable approach to say that there must be a contribution to make the workers realise that they have an obligation and cannot have something for nothing. But the Minister says that there are financial limits beyond which the country cannot go and that the contribution is required for that reason. To say that we have reached the financial limit in the Budget is sheer poppycock when we are providing, this year moneys for our defence programme which far exceed our expenditure on the Health Service. Does anybody suggest that money required for defence should be taken out of the Budget and provided on some other contributory basis?
Hon. Members opposite say that the Bill is necessary and that contributions must be provided because there are financial limits to the Budget, but that does not read sense when a great defence bill is met in these days by budgetary methods. This is a retrograde and wrong step. When we on this side of the Committee return to power I hope that we shall get rid of the Bill as soon as may be and restore a free Health Service and see that the money is provided by taxation and not by contributions from those who benefit from the service.

Mr. W. Griffiths: I take it that my hon. Friends are moving the Amendment to enable the Government to submit their proposals to the electorate and give them some explanation for their gross deception on health matters at the last two General Elections. This is an invitation to an exercise in democracy of which the Government should avail themselves. I am not at all sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) was right when he said that the Minister had had this policy imposed upon him. I am sure that it is within the recollection of the Committee that the Minister told us today that he believes in the principle of those contributions and that he is not an unwilling victim of


Treasury policy. He believes that this is a desirable way of financing the National Health Service.
The right hon. Gentleman keeps telling us that as a result of this policy we get a better system of priorities. He keeps telling us that, although it may be very desirable that people should have appliances without charges, yet, within the limits imposed upon him as Minister by present economic conditions, he is able, by imposing charges and increasing contributions, to direct money to what he and his right hon. and hon. Friends regard as desirable projects.
Let us see what the citizens of Manchester would think of it, bearing in mind their recent experiences. One of the consequences of the action of a Tory Minister of Health in imposing the 1s. charge on every item of prescription played a not inconsiderable part in the causes which produced the recent engineers' strike.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. H. R. Spence): The hon. Member must address himself to the Amendment. He is going a little wide of it.

Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry. I shall endeavour to keep myself more closely to the Amendment. It is necessary for my constituents in Manchester to have the benefits that would flow from acceptance of the Amendment, inasmuch as they would then be able to examine what is happening to the Service in Manchester and see whether they are getting wise administration and value for their money under the right hon. Gentleman's stewardship. So far from all this desirable extension of the Service, in the priority that the Minister recognises, taking place, in Manchester I notice that recently the very famous cancer hospital there has had to give notice that for the first time for many years some of its wards will have to be closed this summer and some of its work curtailed. Does the Minister recognise that as indicating a belief in high priority?

The Temporary Chairman: I cannot relate the hon. Member's arguments to the Amendment, which is concerned with the date of the appointed day. Will the hon. Member please relate what he has to say to the Amendment?

Miss Herbison: On a point of order. Is it not the case that we are asking that the date be postponed for a certain time

and that we must give reasons for it? The Minister has said that the Bill will help in deciding priorities. He says that that is why he wants the Bill quickly. Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) has the right to say why he disagrees with the Minister's priorities and wants to prevent the Bill being enacted so soon?

Mr. Griffiths: I am simply seeking, Mr. Spence, to answer the arguments put forward by the Minister about his conception of priorities and to show that the charges already imposed have failed to bring behind the most desirable projects in the City of Manchester the benefits which would flow from greater financial support. I give one more example. Increasingly, my attention is drawn to the fact that less and less opportunity is given to expectant mothers to have their first child in hospital in the City of Manchester.
We shall put Questions to the Minister in due course and try to extract from him a recognition of the fact that my constituents and constituents of other hon. Members in the city regard the cancer hospital, the infantile mortality rates and the hospital for expectant mothers as matters of the highest priority to which we shall continue to draw his attention.
I will say no more. I think that the handling of the Health Service by successive Ministers in this Government in the last few years, and the introduction of these extra contributions for workpeople without the mandate of the electors, is a good and sufficient reason why the Bill should be postponed for the period suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Vosper: I will, first, answer the specific point put to me by the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) about the appointed day. It is impossible to put in the Bill the exact appointed day. He may recollect that whereas the income anticipated from this provision in a full year was about £40 million, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he expected to derive from it this year £20 million. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends should be able to forecast the approximate date that is anticipated as the appointed day.
I was slightly intrigued by the suggested day in the Amendment. I appreciate that


1st May has a particular interest for the party opposite, but it was the choice of year that was of greater interest to me—1960—because it seemed to assume that there would be no General Election in this country until the early months of that year. In that respect, there may be some wisdom in the Amendment.
I was also slightly intrigued by the argument put forward by two hon. Members that it was necessary to have a mandate to enact legislation of this nature. That argument is useful and may have been used occasionally by both sides of the Committee. Will the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) tell me that during the next few weeks we must not introduce the opticians' Bill until after the next Election because there is no mandate for my party to do so?
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) suggested that I had no mandate, but she referred to developments in the National Health Service which the Conservative Party mentioned in 1955 and which the Government had since carried out. If we are pledged to carry out development of the National Health Service, it is not unreasonable to seek the necessary finance to enable us to do that. To delay the Bill for two-and-a-half years, which would be the effect of the Amendment, would be to deprive the Health Service of £100 million.

Mr. Willis: Am I to understand that the additional money raised this year as a result of these contributions will be additional money for expenditure on the Health Service?

Mr. Vosper: I will come to Health Service finance in one moment.
The logical consequence of this Amendment, if the Committee accepts it. is that the Health Service will be deprived of £100 million in two-and-a-half years. Neither in Committee nor at any other stage of the Bill have we yet been told what is the alternative policy. We are told that we should increase the taxation on the Surtax payers. That money is being rapidly expended in many directions by the party opposite.
I had anticipated from what the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said in the Second Reading debate that the Opposition party's pro-

posal, published last week, would tell us what was the attitude of the Opposition towards the financing of the Health Service and the contributions. I am none the wiser how the Opposition would seek to replace the financial resources of which they are seeking to deprive the Health Service by this Amendment.
7.15 p.m.
I should have thought that the Opposition—I say this with sincerity—were as anxious as the Government to see the development of the Service, but I find it difficult to reconcile their two different approaches to the matter.

Miss Herbison: The whole tenor of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that if we are to have any developments in the Service in the future the only way they will be financed will be by contribution. That is the only thing that can come from the speech which the right lion. Gentleman is making now, and I am sure it will be noted in the country. We consider it to be very serious indeed.

Mr. Vosper: Perhaps the hon. Lady will listen to the rest of my speech, and then she may want to withdraw what she has said.
On the other hand, the Opposition accept the necessity to place limitations on finance obtained from taxation. Two successive Socialist Chancellors of the Exchequer have applied that limitation, and I cannot believe that if ever there is a third Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer he will not seek to place a limit on the finance derived from taxation towards the Service. That is one argument that the Opposition put forward.
As to their other argument, they seek on this occasion to deny the Service what I believe to be a perfectly legitimate source of finance. Throughout discussion of the Bill it has been suggested that I am the servant of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing the measure. It is said that this is a financial Measure and that I am seeking to help the Chancellor balance his Budget. If that were my wish, there would be other easier ways of doing it. I could hold back on the Service. That is my answer to the hon. Lady for Lanarkshire, North.
The estimates for this year for the Service, including Scotland, show an increase of £48 million over those for last


year. Even if the Bill comes into force in the autumn, there will still be a considerably increased expenditure out of revenue towards the Service. I could, of course, do what has been done by the party opposite, impose further charges on the Service. I could curtail some aspects of it.
Previously, I mentioned the dental Service. I have chosen not to do so, because I believe it is my responsibility to maintain, develop and use the resources of the Service as best we can. For that reason I want to see a regular income, and the Government are of the opinion that for a portion of the Health Service to be financed by the contributory principle is not unreasonable. Therefore, I wish to see the continued development of the Service.
I believe that the Bill should be given its Third Reading as soon as possible, and that, therefore, the Amendment should be rejected.

Mr. Marquand: As to the date that we chose, we knew that by law there must be a General Election not later than May, 1960. That was the last possible date on which the Government could go to the country. We had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have indicated that the Government were going to the country very much sooner than that. We got no such indication from him. We merely got reiteration of the argument that the money must be found somewhere.
I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what we shall say to the country when, and before, the General Election takes place. We shall say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House of Commons in April. 1957, that he had plenty of money from taxes with which to pay the whole of the increased cost of the Service, but that he preferred to make a concession to the Surtax payers and impose additional charges on the National Insurance contributors. That will be

what we shall be saying from now until the longed for General Election.

Mr. Willis: The right hon. Gentleman did not answer my question. I asked whether the £42 million, about £20 million of which will be realised this year —from which we assume that the date will be in September or October—will mean additional expansion of the Service. The right hon. Gentleman got round that in a cunning way. He said that the Service is costing £48 million more this year. How much of that is due to increases in wages, salaries and prices, and how much is due to the promises made by the Conservative Party when it introduced its scheme just before the General Election for expanding the hospital service? It is legitimate to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if the Bill were not passed, the Health Service would be cut by £20 million. We have not had an answer, and we ought to let the date wait until we get one.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Scotland or one of the other Scottish Ministers is not here. If one of the Scottish Ministers had been here we could have asked some rather more pertinent questions. I dislike having English Ministers dealing with matters affecting Scotland. Earlier, one of my hon. Friends said that it was a good thing, but I think it is a bad thing. We ought to have had one of the Scottish Ministers here.

Mr. Vosper: I cannot give the hon. Member a figure, but I can tell him that the Estimates laid before the House by myself and the Secretary of State for Scotland provide for an expansion of the National Health Service in real terms in the coming year.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 149, Noes 189.

Division No. 108.]
AYES
[7.22 p.m


Ainsley, J. W.
Blenkinsop, A.
Callaghan, L. J.


Albu, A. H.
Blyton, W. R.
Carmichael, J.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Boardman, H.
Champion, A, J.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Chapman, W. D.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bowles, F. G.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Awbery, S. S.
Brockway, A. F.
Coldrick, W.


Benson, G.
Brougton, Dr. A. D. D.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)


Beswick, Frank
Burke, W. A.
Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Blackburn, F.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Cullen, Mrs. A.




Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Ross, William


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lawson, G.M.
Royle, C.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Short, E. W.


Deer, G.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Delargy, H. J.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Simmons, C, J. (Brierley Hill)


Donnelly, D. L.
Lipton, Marcus
Skeffington, A. M.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Dye, S.
MacColl, J. E.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Snow, J. W.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Soskice, Rt. Hon, Sir Frank


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mahon, Simon
Sparks, J. A.


Fienburgh, W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Sylvester, G. O.


Gibson, C. W.
Mason, Roy
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Greenwood, Anthony
Mellish, R. J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mitchison, G. R.
Tomney, F.


Grey, C. F.
Monslow, W.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)
Moody, A. S.
Viant, S. P.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Moss, R.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hale, Leslie
Moyle, A.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mulley, F. W.
West, D. G.


Hannan, W.
Oliver, G. H.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Oram, A. E.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Hastings, S.
Orbach, M.
Wigg, George


Hayman, F. H.
Owen, W.J.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne valley)
Wilkins, W. A.


Herbison, Miss M.
Pargiter, G. A.
Willey, Frederick


Houghton, Douglas
Paton, John
Williams, David (Neath)


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Pearson, A.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pentland, N.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Hunter, A. E.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercllffe)
Popplewell, E.
Winterbottom, Richard


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Woof, R. E.


Janner, B.
Probert, A. R.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Proctor, W. T.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Rankin, John
Zilliacus, K.


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Reid, William



Jones, Elwyn(W. Ham, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cunningham, Knox
Horobin, Sir Ian


Aitken, W. T.
Currie, G. B. H.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement(Montgomery)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Arbuthnot, John
Deedes, W. F.
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Armstrong, C. W.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hyde, Montgomery


Atkins, H. E.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry


Baldwin, A. E.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Iremonger, T. L.


Barter, John
du Cann, E. D. L.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Bell, Philip (Bolton. E.)
Elliott,R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Finlay, Graeme
Keegan, D.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Fisher, Nigel
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Fort, R.
Kerr, H. W.


Bishop, F. P.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Kershaw, J. A.


Body, R. F.
Godber, J. B.
Kimball, M.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Goodhart, Philip
Lambert, Hon. G.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gower, H. R.
Lambton, Viscount


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Car. R. (Nantwich)
Leavey, J. A.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Green, A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Brooman-White, R. C
Gresham Cooke, R.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Bryan, P.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Burden, F. F. A.
Gurden, Harold
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Butler, Rt.Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)


Campbell, Sir David
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Carr, Robert
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
McAdden, S. J.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hay, John
McCallum, Major Sir Duncan


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Cole, Norman
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
McKibbin, A. J.


Cooke, Robert
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Cooper, A. E.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Crosthwaite-Eyre. Col. O. E.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Maddan, Martin


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hornby, R. P.
Maitland, Cdr.J.F.W. (Horncastle)







Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn, Sir H.
Pitman, I. J.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Marshall, Douglas
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Matthew, R.
Pott, H. P.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Maude, Angus
Powell, J. Enoch
Teeling, W.


Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Profumo, J. D.
Temple, John M.


Mawby, R. L.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Medlicott, Sir Frank
Rawlinson, Peter
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Redmayne, M.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Remnant, Hon. P.
Turner, H. F. L.


Moore, Sir Thomas
Ridsdale, J. E.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Nairn, D. L. S.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire,W.)


Neave, Airey
Russell, R. S.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Wall, Major Patrick


Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E, &amp; Chr'ch)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Oakshott, H. D.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stevens, Geoffrey
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Osborne, C.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Page, R. G.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)



Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Storey, S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Partridge, E.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Colonel J. H. Harrison and




Mr. Barber.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — First Sehedule.—(RATES OF NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS.)

7.30 p.m

Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, in page 8, line 9, to leave out "1 4½" and insert "8½".

The Chairman (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I suggest that it would he convenient to discuss together all the Amendments to the Schedule.

Mr. Houghton: I am sure that that will meet the convenience of the Committee.
This is the Opposition's last despairing fling at this Bill. I will not say that if the Committee carries this Amendment the Bill will be completely wrecked, but I will say that it would be seriously damaged. The Amendment proposes to reduce the weekly rate of contribution in the First Schedule from the figures shown to about half of the proposed new contribution. What we propose is to put in the First Schedule, the contributions which are shown in the Second Schedule. The broad effect would be to reduce by half the proposed total contribution to the Health Service and to leave the Health Service element in the National Insurance contribution as the new contribution to the National Health Service.
The Minister in his Second Reading speech explained the existing Health Service element in the National Insurance contribution and the proposed new National Health contribution. He said:

The existing National Health Service elements—those paid at present in the weekly National Insurance contribution—are as follow: For a man 10d.; for a woman 8d.; and for a juvenile 6d.
Of those, the employer, in the case of employed persons, was assumed to pay l½d. The new contributions in the First Schedule are to be ls. 8d. for a man, Is. 4d. for a woman, and Is. for a juvenile, and the employer is to pay 3½d. of the new and increased contribution. That is how the figures in the First Schedule are arrived at. The Minister continued:
 Broadly, therefore, the National Health Service contributions have been doubled with, however, an adjustment between the employers' and employees' shares to ensure that, for administrative convenience, halfpennies do not occur in the combined employers' and employees' contributions.
Then he said that the:
…ed contributions will provide roughly £80 million a year compared with the present £40 million a year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 8th May, 1957; Vol. 569, c. 994–5]
Our Amendment would certainly damage the Bill, though it would still leave the Minister with something. It would leave him with a National Health Service contribution, and that is what he wants. Although many of us are opposed in principle to a National Health Service contribution, for the purpose of this Amendment we are prepared to let him have it —but not as big a contribution as he wants.
He said a few moments ago that one of the points of importance was to establish the principle of a contribution to the Health Service, to remove the


doubts and uncertainties and the ignorance of many people who think that they are contributing to the Health Service more than they are; so, he said, let the National Health Service contribution be seen for what it is. Large or small, let it be seen for what it is. This Amendment will let it be seen for what it is.
The Minister said he wanted to make people aware of it. Very well. Our Amendment will enable people to be aware of it. He even went so far as to suggest that it was desirable for the public to realise how small a contribution they were making directly in proportion to the total cost. Our Amendment will make it smaller, and that ought to satisfy the Minister's requirement in that connection rather more than he is seeking.
I do not know what the Minister can possibly be complaining about. We have given him everything except the money. We want the money to be reduced, because we think this will be a hardship on many people. Of course, in connection with the introduction of the National Health Service contribution, the Minister or his colleagues have indulged in a little jiggery-pokery. They have juggled about with the Income Tax, and if anything pains me it is to see Ministers juggling about with the Income Tax.
What they have done is to say that the new National Health Service contribution shall not rank as a deduction from tax liability, whereas at present the National Health Service element in the National Insurance contribution does rank for tax relief. That, of course, is an additional burden upon those who are to pay the National Health Service contribution who are taxpayers.
What has the Minister done? He has reduced the National Insurance contribution for the employed person by approximately 36s. a year. He has taken that 36s. and put it into the National Health Service contribution. Then, having thought of a number, he has doubled it, and this will not rank for tax relief. Therefore those who pay the National Health contribution—twice as much as the National Health Service element in the National Insurance contribution—will pay tax on the double contribution; whereas at the moment, they get tax relief on half of it. That is what I call jiggery-pokery, because the result is that

contributors who are taxpayers will pay several shillings a year more, in all, as a result of the change.
It is true that the extra shillings will not go to the National Health Service directly. They will go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will finance the National Health Service indirectly, so that this is a hidden additional contribution to the National Health Service. I realise that contributors who are not liable to Income Tax are not the victims of this little trick, but to them the additional contribution will represent a net increase in their outgoings.
On the employer's side, things are different. The employer can charge against his taxable profits, if he is in trade or business, the contributions that he has to make on behalf of his workers, both to the National Insurance scheme and, under this Bill, to the National Health Service. They will all rank as charges against taxable profits, so that he is left in the same favourable position as before. He will be making a slightly higher contribution under the Bill towards the Health Service than he was making before— 3½d. instead of 1½d.—but that will still rank for tax relief.
We think that, if there is to be a National Health Service contribution, it should be no bigger than the National Health Service element in the National Insurance contribution, and so we propose in these Amendments a simple equation as between the First and Second Schedules. By the amount that we reduce the National Insurance contribution, to that extent we will impose a National Health Service contribution. That gives the Minister everything he wants except the money, and he really does not want the money. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has money and to spare. He is absolutely rolling in it, and in this year's Budget he chose certain ways of reducing the surplus which he estimated would otherwise remain at the end of the present financial year.
Consideration for the feelings of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite almost forbids my mentioning the principal respect in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to disburse part of his surplus, but he has given very substantial reliefs to persons of very substantial income. We would have thought


that he would have refrained from imposing an additional burden on the community generally, rich and poor alike, for the National Health Service, and that he would not have done it in this way at a time when he is giving substantial reliefs of taxation.
I am not one of those who calls a flat rate contribution a poll tax, though some of my hon. Friends have so described it. It is a contribution—call it a form of taxation, if we like—but there is no doubt that the flat rate principle of contribution has some disadvantages from the point of view of the equitable distribution of the burden. It is well known that some fresh thinking is now being done in certain quarters on the desirability of continuing the flat rate contribution principle in connection with the National Insurance scheme.
It is one of the principles of the party to which I belong that, as has already been stated once or twice this afternoon by some of my hon. Friends, the hazards of life of the individual should, as far as possible, be taken care of by the community. The community can do something for each one of us which it is often beyond our own power to do for ourselves. By this principle of communal effort we safeguard the individual from the hardships and hazards of life in this matter of health. In the case of old age, infirmity and sickness, there is an especial emotional appeal about community effort to protect those who suffer from ill-health and who are overtaken by sickness, very often prolonged, which can make a substantial difference to their standard of life and to the welfare of those who are dependent upon them.
In getting treatment and proper attention during sickness, we all know from past experience the fear of doctors' bills in many a household in Britain. When I was a boy, if I may be permitted a personal note, behind a vase on the mantelpiece was the doctor's bill that had not been paid, and as long as that unpaid bill was there, we had to take care of our own colds and maladies in self-medication. The book of words which was kept in a cupboard in many working-class homes in those days was referred to by parents who wanted to see what they could do to get their children well, because they did not feel that they could call in the doctor because they had not paid his last bill.
7.45 p.m.
The National Health Service removed that from all the homes of Britain in one go. There has been nothing more dramatic or more revolutionary in our social and domestic life than that, and none of us, I am sure, on either side of the Committee—or am I sure of the other side?—I assert that none of us on either side of the Committee wants to go back to those old days, but wants to keep the National Health Service in all its fundamentals.
Here, we find a nibbling away at the first principle upon which the National Health Service rests. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite begin to nibble in this way, they can begin to nibble all round, and very soon the National Health Service will have quite a different look. This Amendment is a salutary warning to the Minister that, even at this last stage in the consideration of the Bill, we want to resist his attempt to impose an additional Health Service contribution.
It goes against the grain for many of us that we have conceded that there should be a National Health Service contribution at all, but at this stage we cannot do anything to prevent that. All that we can do is to seek to reduce it in amount, and I therefore submit to the Committee this Amendment, which reduces the amounts in the First Schedule to those in the Second Schedule, which are almost half the amounts of the contributions which the First Schedule seeks to impose.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): It was with some measure of relief that I heard the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) saying that this was a last despairing fling. Of course, he put the argument against his Amendment eloquently and well. He said quite rightly that it would deprive my right hon. Friend of the money. Let us face the fact that if we are to have an expanding Health Service, we do need the money, and the Health Service, no matter what the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths), who is not here now, may say, is a service making real expansion in every direction.
The hon. Member for Sowerby went into this rather abstruse point of Income Tax, and I must confess that for me to


try to teach him about Income Tax is a little absurd, because I know that he knows so much about it. The change that is being made so far as employers are concerned is only that an employer who is not carrying on a trade or business will no longer be entitled to deduct the National Health Service element in the contribution when he is paying Income Tax. I do not think there was any reason why he should have been allowed to do so. The principle that the same sum should not be taxed twice when dealing with benefits such as retirement benefit could not be said to apply with equity in this case.
The hon. Gentleman made a heartfelt plea, which was really how hard this proposal would be on those in the highest ranges of Surtax, and it came very quaintly from the benches opposite. I hope that we shall be clear about what is being done. We are correcting an anomaly which was allowed to creep into the Finance Act, 1946, and which was continued in the Income Tax Act, 1952.
I revert to the main theme of the Amendment, which, as the hon. Member for Sowerby said, would deprive us of the money that we need. It would also conflict with one purpose of the Bill— that the National Health Insurance contribution should meet a higher proportion of the growing cost. The Service is expanding, and the proportion which we derive from the contribution has been falling. In the first year of operation it was 10 per cent. The general expectation was originally that it would cover 20 per cent. of the cost. After the Bill becomes law we shall still be receiving only 11½ per cent. of the cost from contributions. Even if we add the charges we shall still only receive 17 per cent., compared with the 20 per cent. which was originally aimed at. The Committee should have those figures in mind. It is not unreasonable, considering the changes in income and the great expansion there has been in the Service, that we should get back to the original figure.

Miss Herbison: In which part of the Financial Memorandum is the 20 per cent. mentioned?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The 20 per cent. to which I was referring was mentioned in the Beveridge Report. I think

that the hon. Lady will find that the figure was generally accepted at the time.

Miss Herbison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister, replying to an Amendment earlier today, mentioned that the figure was in the Financial Memorandum? If the Parliamentary Secretary is now basing his case on the Beveridge Report I think he will find that it has already been completely demolished.

Mr. Vosper: As the hon. Lady has referred to me, may I say that if she will look at the Financial Memorandum to the 1946 Bill she will see the figure for the total estimated cost. From that, the proportion of 20 per cent. from the contribution can be worked out.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that the point which she raised has now been completely answered. We consider it quite reasonable that the percentage of the cost derived from this source should be something like what it was then.
We are also entitled to make something of the point that people will now be more aware of what they pay. It has never been easy to explain to our constituents that out of their contributions they get these various financial benefits, and that there is the strange anomaly that they do in fact make a contribution towards the National Health Service. Now we can say that the Is. 8d. goes directly to that Service.
I do not think that our proposal will be as unpopular as hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think. The views of the hon. Member for Sowerby on Income Tax and poll tax matters are always very interesting and honest, but I do not think that there will be anything nearly approaching the popular outcry that he and other hon. Gentlemen opposite are gambling on.
After all the arguments heard today, we have not heard one real point from Members opposite about what their own proposals would be for financing the expanding National Health Service. We have heard about the question of Surtax and the amount that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has distributed already, but we have not had a real, straightforward answer to the point, "How would hon. Gentlemen opposite find this sum?" I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.

Mr. Marquand: We are very glad to hear the views of the Parliamentary Secretary. We only wish that he had been empowered to go some way towards meeting us, or even towards saying something fresh. Unfortunately, he was not so empowered.
He did say that he felt—I think that I am quoting him properly—that we were all now entitled to make it clear to our constituents that they pay to the National Health Service in the form of a direct contribution. The Amendment concedes that point, which we have argued on a previous Amendment. The Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) gives the Minister his National Health Service contribution. There is nothing to stop the Minister from having his separate stamp indicating a contribution towards the National Health Service. In so far as that removes misconception from people's minds it will be fine.
I quoted to the Parliamentary Secretary earlier what had been said by his hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd). I doubt whether it would be more likely to increase rather than diminish the ignorance about the way in which the National Health Service is financed. The larger this special contribution the more likely people are to believe that the whole cost of the Service is met from it. However that may be, we have reached the point where we are obliged to accept from the Minister that he intends to have this special contribution. We concede it to him in the Amendment.
So far we have unfortunately had no reply to what has been said in favour of the Amendment. We have not heard how far the Minister intends to go along this road. The hon. Member for Cheadle said that the present contribution was inadequate and that we ought to work towards having at least one-third of the cost of the National Health Service covered by contributions. That is the threat behind this proposal, despite all that the Parliamentary Secretary has said about the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said that an increased contribution would require further legislation; of course it would. We know that.
What is in the right hon. Gentleman's mind? Having said so much about the

desirability of a 20 per cent. contribution towards the cost of the National Health Service, can he say whether that is the final figure? I wish he would answer that question before we part from the Clause. We should like an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman does not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle, who has some influence in the counsels of Government supporters, and is likely, as time goes on, to have more influence. He has experience, and confidence as a debater, and we should not be at all surprised to see him obtain promotion to the Government Front Bench, Do his views influence the mind of the Minister?
Do the Government agree with the hon. Member for Cheadle that the Bill is part of a gradual step, albeit by easy stages, towards the proportion that he mentioned? When is the next step to be taken? Before we press the Amendment to a Division we should like to have assurances on these points. We have not had answers upon them. I press the right hon. Gentleman to intervene again and to give us some sort of assurance.
8.0 p.m.
Could he also explain to us whether he gave any consideration to the equity of doubling the contribution for other classes of contributors? We accept that he wanted to get about double the money from insurance contributors he has been getting hitherto, but when he was drawing up these Schedules, did he really feel it was absolutely necessary to double every one? In particular, will he explain who are the non-employed boys and girls under the age of 18 who are to pay 1s. Health Service contribution and whose National Insurance contribution in this respect was previously 6d.? One could hazard a guess, but let us have it clearly from an authority. If it is equitable to double the contribution of an employed man earning wages of substantial amounts, is it equitable to double the contribution of non-employed boys and girls—or, for that matter, of employed boys and girls?
At an earlier stage the Minister argued that good wages are being earned and that people ought to pay some contribution out of their increased earnings towards the increased costs of the National Health Service, that it is all


gradually moving up pari passu and the contribution ought to be increased proportionately, but does that apply to people earning small salaries or to boys and girls? Have their wages gone up? What about those boys and girls under the age of 18—who are they?
What about the self-employed? Has there been a great deal of difficulty hitherto in collecting contributions from self-employed under National Insurance? Has that difficulty diminished as time has gone on, or has it tended to increase? What anticipation has the right hon. Gentleman about the ability of the Ministry to collect in future from large numbers of self-employed people in a small way of business the amount of contributions now to be asked from them? Has any thought been given to this, or has the Minister just thought of a number and doubled it? We should like to know something about the incidence of this charge on various classes of contributors.
Has any estimate been made by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance? He is not here, but the Parliamentary Secretary to that Ministry is present. Has any estimate been made of the effect of all this on the National Insurance contribution, which is nominally reduced, but that reduction is offset by an increase in the National Health Service contribution? What effect has that on the ability to collect contributions for the National Insurance Fund in future? We know that contributions to that Fund are bound to be increased. The Minister has already told us that they will be increased to pay for the improved conditions of benefit for widows and others in respect of whom we passed legislation this year and last year. Is there to be some increase in contribution from that source?
At a later date—we suppose at a time as near as possible to the next General Election—the Government will be doing something for old-age pensioners. Are they to finance that by an increase in contributions? What is the size of the National Insurance contribution going to be at the end of all this process? Have the Government thought about that and considered whether these increases will not adversely affect the ability of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance adequately to finance and collect the finance for the National Insurance Fund? Will it not impede his ability to make

improvements for old-age pensioners and others affected?
Those are all indirect repercussions. I may be wrong about some of them, but they are possible repercussions on the National Insurance Fund. When we are asked to vote on this Schedule we have to have in mind, not merely the National Health contribution, but possible repercussions on the National Insurance Fund. I should like to have answers to these questions.

Mr. Vosper: The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) put three specific questions to me which I shall try to answer. I cannot give a further assurance about the future, except that I did say that further legislation will be required to increase this contribution still further. I am rather surprised that the right hon. Member belittled the difficulty of introducing legislation. I thought I was going as far as any Minister could go in saying that there was no intention in this Bill to increase the contribution above what is now proposed. I cannot go further than I have done in regard to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd). I did not brief my hon. Friend on his contribution to the debate, and he would be the first to agree that there have been several occasions when he has not found himself in accord with his Front Bench.
On the second point, about doubling the contributions of specific categories, of course I gave serious consideration to that, but I am satisfied that this will not impose hardship on any particular category. I should have thought the ones mentioned by the right hon. Member might be those least adversely affected. I am not satisfied that the sort of people contained in those categories—whose level of earnings, on the whole, has doubled—will find that this falls hardly on them.

Mr. Marquand: What about the non-employed?

Mr. Vosper: The non-employed are a very limited and technical category. I am not satisfied that we are causing hardship to them.
The third point is that of course we have had prolonged consultations with the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance and the Committee will have


noticed that the Parliamentary Secretary of that Ministry has been here in support during the whole Committee stage. My right hon. Friend the Minister and I are satisfied that in introducing this Bill we are not damaging the future prospects of National Insurance.

Mr. Willis: I do not think we can let the increased contribution go quite so easily as this. This is a very important matter. It is all right for the Minister to try to dismiss it by saying that no one will suffer any hardship. That is the usual Tory excuse. When they make any increase they say that no one will suffer through having to pay ld. more for bread, or 2d. more for milk, but all these small matters add up to a total which forms an enormous hardship, not to a trifling amount. An increase of 8d. or 10d. means that a family which needs another pint of milk cannot afford to buy it. It is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to try to dismiss that as being nothing at all.
I am still very much disappointed that the Scottish Office is not represented on the Government Front Bench in this debate. If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance can do us the honour of being present for the whole debate, I think we could have had the attendances of at least one of the Scottish Ministers.

Miss Herbison: There are two English Health Ministers present.

Mr. Willis: Yes, and we have a sufficient number of Scottish Ministers, goodness knows. I should have thought that one could have attended to answer some of the questions we wish to raise.
Do I understand from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that the Government now feel that 11 per cent.— which I understand is the amount of the cost to be met by contributions—is roughly the right amount? We had a lot of argument earlier about whether Beveridge was right or wrong. I am not so much concerned with that as with what the Government have in mind at present. If the Government think that roughly 11 per cent. of the cost of the National Health Service ought to be met by contributions, are we to take it that, in spite of the difficulty of legislation, every time the cost of the National Health

Service rises, the contribution will be increased accordingly? We ought to have an answer to that.
It is all very well for the Minister to say that it is difficult to introduce legislation. I have found that Tory Governments can always find time for a Bill of this character. If it is a question of spending money, then of course it becomes very difficult for them to find time for the Bill. We ought to be told a little more about the 11 per cent. and what the Government think is the right percentage. I asked the question earlier, but we did not receive an answer. Is it the Government's opinion that 11 per cent. of the cost of the National Health Service should be met by these contributions?
I want to return to the question of what this additional money is needed for. I have already tackled the Minister twice upon it. He has been very clever; I assure him that I admired the nimbleness of mind with which he managed to skirmish around the answer. But it not sufficient to display nimbleness of wit in dealing with the question. What we should like is the answer.
As a result of the increase in contributions in this Schedule, the Government will get an additional £42 million, of which, we understand, £20 million will be received this year. The question which 1 asked previously was this: if the Committee voted against the Schedule, would the National Health Service be cut by £20 million? Is this £20 million to mean an extension of the National Health Service to the amount of £20 million? We are entitled to the answer to that question.
People are to be asked to pay 8d. or 10d. a week extra. The man in the factory will ask, "What am I paying this for? Shall I get something additional for it? Are they going to build a new hospital in my area or extend the various treatment centres in the area? Shall I get a reduction in some of my present charges?" He will ask all those question. Most men will ask one very simple question: what do I get in return for the extra money I have to pay?
The Minister has skirted around the question twice but has not yet dealt with this specific point: next year, when he gets an additional £42 million, will the National Health Service be extended, more than otherwise would have been the


case, by £42 million? If so, in what direction?
What does it mean in Scotland? We cannot ask about Scotland because the Joint Under-Secretary of State apparently thinks this Bill has nothing to do with him. I should have liked to know about some of the hospitals in my constituency. Does this extra money mean that we shall be able to get on with them? Is the hospital programme in Scotland to be extended as a result? That is a legitimate question to ask. If it is to be extended, where is it to be extended?
We ought to have an answer to these questions, because a lot of money is involved. I do not believe that we should easily grant the Government the power to ask every man and woman for an additional 8d. or 10d. per week unless we know what the money is for and whether it is for new expenditure or to help the Government to pay for the existing scheme. I believe it is the latter. If the Minister is honest that is probably what he will tell us and he will not try to skirmish around the point.
I do not wish to ask any more at the present, but we must insist on an answer to that specific question.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I want to emphasise the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) about the absence of Scottish Ministers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If anyone thinks this is a frivolous point, let him turn to the front of the Bill, where he will see that it is sponsored not only by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance but also by the Secretary of State for Scotland, whose name is the second name sponsoring the Bill. Like my hon. Friends, I appreciate the fact that we have had present not only the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, who has been here practically throughout the course of the debate—and we are grateful to her—but also the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. Both the Minister of Health and his Parliamentary Secretary have been present.
We had in the House a Secretary of State for Scotland and two Joint Under-Secretaries of State. The Government

asked for a third, and eventually we had two more Ministers, in order to relieve the Secretary of State so that he could pay more attention to the House. We appointed a Minister of State to the Scottish Office who spends his time between another place and Scotland. With all these Ministers, surely one representative could have been present today. We are dealing with a Schedule which lists charges which will bring from the men and women and the youth of Scotland the sum of £8 million in National Health contributions, a net increase of the revenue of the National Health Service of £4·2 million when we take into account the element which is already paid.
Surely it is not a matter of the Scottish Ministers saying, "I do not need to attend the House. We have no responsibility for these matters. It is only £8 million." It is less than fair of the Scottish Ministers in their attitude to their work for them so completely to ignore the fact that the Committee is discussing the Scottish Health Service.
If hon. Members opposite do not appreciate it, I will explain to them that we have a special Health Service Act for Scotland, which is entirely different from and in many ways better than that for England. We dealt with that Bill as a Scottish Committee, with 15 English Members, and we had a separate Act.
The Ministers now sitting on the Government Front Bench have no responsibility at all to speak for Scotland. The Minister said he had considered matters very carefully and had had a long discussion with the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. Where was the Secretary of State for Scotland? Was anything discussed with him? Let me tell the Minister again that nothing he says from the Government Bench means anything to us Scottish Members of Parliament, He has quoted figures. He did not say whether they were for the United Kingdom or for England and Wales or whether Scotland was included. He must be sensible of his limitations, and if he is speaking on behalf of another Minister he should say so. If he is quoting figures, let him quote them for the whole of the United Kingdom and say so.
We are dealing with a matter of importance to the people of Scotland. The


Minister of Health spoke about the level of wages. One outstanding difference between the two countries is that the level of wages is lower in Scotland than in England and Wales. We have a separate wages board to decide the wages of agricultural workers in Scotland. The wage level is decidedly lower than it is in England and Wales.
I should have thought that the Secretary of State for Scotland or, in his absence, the Minister of Health would have given some justification why, despite that fact, the contribution should be exactly the same for people in Scotland as for people in England and Wales, but we have not had a word of justification. This is a poll tax. More than that, in respect of people whose earnings are lower than the average level, there is injustice and unfairness even within the poll tax.
What is happening is that by this Schedule we are laying down the actual contributions by which the Ministers concerned are prepared—[Interruption.] I do not wish, and I am sure that you, Sir Charles, do not wish me to repeat the earlier part of my speech now that the Joint Under-Secretary has arrived. We shall probably have ample opportunity tomorrow, and probably all day tomorrow in Scottish Grand Committee—[AN HON. MEMBER: "How long?"]. Last week it was eight o'clock, and the week before. The week before that it was a quarter-past four in the morning. I do not know what time it will be tomorrow, but I think that I will have an ample opportunity to remind the Joint Under-Secretary that in this House he has certain responsibilities for Scottish legislation.
Here we are breaching a principle. Hitherto we have riot had an actual contribution, but now we arc to have a definite contribution paid weekly by all employed persons in respect of the National Health Service. The first question I want to ask is: how long is that to last? Anybody who has been considering this Bill on Second Reading and in Committee will recollect that he have had one or two percentages given.
We have heard the Minister, or that Minister who did speak, proclaim that this was not really so bad because it did not come up to the 20 per cent. envisaged in some Memorandum preparatory to the introduction of the Health Service, and telling us that even this 11 per cent., with

an added 5½ per cent., only came to somewhere about 17 per cent. Are we to take it that there is to be a gradual approach in the contributory element to the 20 per cent. with or without changes in respect of health charges? Is that the aim? If it is, we should know.
Secondly, to what is this related? Is it because of the virtue of some long-forgotten formula that had some special righteousness of its own that we must return to it? I should like to ask the Minister—and now that we have with us the Joint Under-Secretary who can say something for Scotland I should like to ask him: to what purpose is this money to be applied in respect of Scotland? Is it that the Joint Under-Secretary cannot tell us? Are we to have the same kind of speech that we had, I think, from the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) today, who told us that the choice lay between this Bill and failure to extend the Service?
We have not had any extension of the Service, and even with this Bill, I gather, we shall have no extension of the Service. I should like to know from the Joint Under-Secretary whether or not some of the money is to be applied to the forthcoming increase in the salaries and emoluments of general practitioners in Scotland. After that takes place, are we to he faced with another Bill or an order to increase the present amounts? The fact is that, although we have been spending more money, we have had no extension of the Service in Scotland. It is the same with every Estimate coming from the Government in respect of every other service—spending more money to get less for it.
What is to happen next year when we are faced with the same position of the Government having failed once again to control inflation, when costs rise, and again we are faced with the same choice of more money or a cut in the Service? Are we to get out of that position by coming along with another Bill and another Schedule like this, increasing the amounts to be paid by the employed? This paying for the Service or for any part of the Service, not according to the ability of people to pay but by a tax which, by its very nature, if it does anything at all, hits hardest those earning least, is so obviously unfair.
In this respect, the Government cannot expect any support from this side. Of course, we now have a chance to hear, for the first time during the whole of the Committee stage, a Scottish Minister defending a piece of Scottish legislation. It was suggested at one point that the Minister of Health had lost his battle with the Treasury. What help, if any, did he get from the Scottish Office in this mythical battle with the Treasury? Or were the Scottish Ministers so wrapped up in the cutting of housing subsidies in Scotland and the producing of a wonderful plan that will certainly not add at all to Glasgow's ability to solve its overspill problems, that they left the matter for English Ministers to deal with on their own?
Now that he is here, perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary will address himself to the points in this Bill. Why is it necessary that in Scotland, where the wage level is lower than it is in England, we should have these standard contributions for the Health Service? Having collected the £4·2 million net increase, to what is it to be applied? Is there to be any extension of the Service, or is that sum to be swallowed up by inflation? I ask that because of the Government's past failures—and, by every prospect, their future failure—to control the never-ending bogey of inflation.
Could the Joint Under-Secretary tell us how long it will be before he, with his right hon. and hon. and Friends, comes back with another such Bill further breaching the principle of a Health Service without contributions by way of weekly stamp? How long will it be before he comes back to increase the contribution? Having waited a long time to hear the voice of someone from the Scottish Office, I think that we are entitled not only to ask these questions but to expect that the Joint Under-Secretary, now being present, will address himself to the Scottish points in the Bill.

Miss Herbison: Surely now that at long last we have present a Scottish Minister, we shall hear something about the point of view of the Scottish Office on this important matter. It seems to me to be discourteous that only now, when the Bill has almost reached the end of its Committee stage, do we have a Scottish Minister in attendance.
I am sure that the points that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) deserve a reply from the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. But I am not in the least surprised that he stays glued to his seat. In view of our experience in the Scottish Grand Committee, where we are dealing with a Bill which the Scottish Ministers are supposed to have studied, and on which we get so little information from them—indeed they often contradict themselves—it seems to me that it might be very difficult for the Joint Under-Secretary to speak on the Bill which is now before us and deal with the important points which have been raised.
As the Joint Under-Secretary is quite unable to answer those points, I should have thought there would have been some camaraderie between the Tory Ministers, and that the Minister of Health might have sprung to the protection of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and might have tried to give answers to the questions that have been raised by Scottish Members. But that camaraderie does not seem to exist.
8.30 p.m.
One specific question has been asked on a number of occasions today by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). The Minister has not given an answer to that question, and it seems to me that before any decision is taken on this Schedule, which seeks to increase the contribution, the Minister ought to reply to my hon. Friend. The question is simple. If this increased contribution were not available to the Government, would that mean a cut in the National Health Service? Putting it another way, if this increased contribution does find its way into the Ministry of Health and into the Health Service in Scotland, does it mean that on this year's estimates we shall get an increase equivalent to the increase in this contribution? It seems to me that the Minister should answer these questions, and so far he has not done so.
My next point is this. The Minister is doubling the contributions towards the Health Service, and he glibly talks about earnings having doubled. He does not mention that wages have gone up 70 per cent. and not 100 per cent. Yet here he is trying to make a case for doubling contributions on the basis that incomes


have doubled when, in many instances, incomes have not doubled at all. The Minister has made no case whatever for doubling the contributions. There is no case for the Government to get money for the National Health Service out of contributions rather than from taxation.
The Minister said that no one from this side of the Committee has made an authoritative suggestion on how this extra money should be found, if it were needed. On a number of occasions I, and I believe my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), have said that we would not have asked for that increased contribution, but that we would have used money from taxation instead of giving it to the Surtax payers. Surely, that is clear enough, even to the Minister, who has heard it on a number of occasions.
I ask the Minister at least to answer the specific question that has been put by my right hon. Friend; and perhaps he will have a whispered discussion with the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on another question that I asked him about the division of this extra contribution. I asked him how it would be divided between the Ministry of Health and the Scottish Office, and he told me that it would be divided as it is at present, according to the insured population. So far as I can understand, that is not how the Health Service in Scotland is financed at all. We have the Goschen formula; in other words, from what the Minister of Health pays to the National Health Service, the Scottish Office gets eleven-eightieths. That is another point that ought to be cleared up before we take a vote on the question of these increased contributions.

Mr. Willis: We have plenty of time tonight, because the Government have moved the suspension of the Rule and, therefore, we have time for the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to accustom himself to the climate of the debate and to rack his mind in order that he may answer some of the questions we have been asking.
Now that the Joint Under-Secretary has condescended to grace the Committee with his presence, I want to ask a further question about the crofters of Scotland. It concerns the contributions, as will be seen when I come to expand this point.

When the National Insurance Bill went through the Committee in 1946, we had long discussions about the rate of contribution in so far as it affected the Highland counties. There was a special reason for that. Money incomes amongst crofters and a number of people in the Highlands are very small. The people there tend to live by barter. A grocer, for instance, goes out with his wagon and comes back with a certain amount of produce which he has obtained from the crofters.
We did discuss at that time, as the hon. Gentleman will find if he cares to turn up the Report, whether or not the suggested rate of contribution was not too heavy. This is very relevant to what we are discussing now, because we are here considering an increase in the rate of contribution. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State, who is looking very amiable, in his usual forthcoming manner will give us the benefit of his advice and tell us whether this matter was borne in mind during the preparation of the Bill. If it was, what did the Scottish Office have to say about it? Did the Scottish Office make any representations to the English Ministers and the Treasury about it? If it did, why has it doubled the contribution from crofters and others in their position? This is a purely Scottish matter It is a question which, I am sure, the English Ministers are quite unable to answer. Therefore, if we are to have any light shed upon it, as well as upon the other matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), we must have a word from the Joint Under-Secretary. I beg the hon. Gentleman, if he wishes to get his Bill quickly, to treat the House courteously and to endeavour to answer the questions which Scottish Members are putting to him, for they are put in all seriousness.
We want to know what is to happen as a result of the increased contribution in Scotland as a whole. What has he in mind? I notice that he made a great speech at the weekend about the National Health Service. He had an excellent Press and an excellent opportunity for outlining his ideas for the spending of this additional money in Scotland. Having read his speech, I am bound to say that I did not gather from it that he contemplated doing very much. All he did was


to lecture people on the National Health Service and how they ought to run it, and not give them any encouragement in the running of it. Neither did he tell them —and this is closely relevant to the point on which we want an answer—that his Government were introducing a Bill in the House of Commons which would give them an additional eleven-eightieths of £41 million, that is to say, approximately £5 million. His speech to this gathering received wide publicity throughout Scotland, but he did not say, "We are introducing a Bill in the House of Commons which will give us an additional £5 million per annum, £2½ million during the current year; as a result of this increased income to the National Health Service Fund, we shall be able to do this, that and the other ".

Mr. Ross: If my hon. Friend will allow me to say so, my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) pointed out that the Goschen formula is not working in this respect. If my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) turns to the Financial Memorandum, he will find that, according to the table at the end, the net additional payment towards the cost of the Service in Scotland is to be £.4·1 million.

Mr. Willis: I was trying to get a figure which could be used with some degree of accuracy. I admit that my hon. Friend was absent for a few moments when the English Minister, the Minister of Health, answered my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman, however, did not make the position clear. Once again, his answer was most unsatisfactory. I am simply using the Goschen formula so that we might arrive at the figure for Scotland.
What is the Minister doing with this extra £2½ million this year? We have not yet been told whether it is additional. We are still in the dark about it. Perhaps we can find out whether we are actually getting additional income or simply finding a new method of paying for the old expenditure by asking whether, if it is additional income, the Minister has in mind projects in Scotland on which it will be spent. What will the £5 million be spent upon next year? Will it be spent

in the south-eastern, the northern or the south-western region, or where will it be spent? What projects has the Minister in mind? We are entitled to an answer.
The Minister of Health fails to give the answer we want. I am sure that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will not be as discourteous as that. He knows that Scottish Members are accustomed to rather better treatment and that, whilst English Members might put up with anything, we from Scotland are not prepared to put up with that kind of thing. We like to have answers to questions and to know what we are doing. Where money is concerned, we like to know where it is to be spent. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary, in his usual charming and obliging manner, will treat us in the same fashion on the Floor of the House and try to give us some of the information we want.

Mr. Ross: The signatories in support of the Bill are the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland. This First Schedule lays down what has to be paid by everyone employed in Scotland, whether man or woman, boy or girl, by way of weekly contribution. That contribution is to be taken from them and remitted by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to the Secretary of State for Scotland at such times and in such sums as the Treasury thinks fit.
Surely, we are entitled to have from the Joint Under-Secretary—and the longer I speak, the better brief he will get from his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health —an explanation of why that money is necessary and why these particular sums must be paid. How much will they amount to for Scotland? For what purpose is the money to be applied once it is collected? We are entitled to know why these amounts have been specified in the Schedule and why there has been no differentiation in respect of the National Health Service in Scotland.
I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will not feel that we are in any way aggressive. As Scottish Members, however, we feel that if the signature of the Secretary of State is required to the Bill and he has been in discussion concerning both its principle and its detail, as Members representing Scottish constituencies we have a right to know exactly how the Bill is to work in Scotland and the reason


for these precise figures. The Joint Under-Secretary appears to be rising to his feet. Now that he has decided to speak, I hope that he will not be impatient about getting me to sit down.
8.45 p.m.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address himself to these questions—why Scotland participates in the first place, why these figures are applicable to England and Scotland, how the money will be divided in respect of the Scottish Health Service and, having received the money, how it will be spent. We should also like a specific answer to the question, which has been put more than twice in the debate, whether the sum coming in this year is new and additional to the Estimates already laid before the House of Commons. Does this mean that there will be an extension to the tune this year of over £2 million and in a full year of £4·2 million in relation to the Scottish Health Service?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): I can assure the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and the Committee that there is no question of any discourtesy to the Committee in the fact that no Scottish Minister has actually taken part in the discussion on the Bill. I assure hon. and right hon. Members that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has co-operated with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health at all stages and, so far as Scotland and England are concerned, this is an agreed Measure in every respect.

As hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies know, there is really no separate Scottish aspect in the Bill, although they have endeavoured to find some particular Scottish aspect in order, quite properly, to get me to speak. The only point that I would make is that the division between England and Scotland is on the basis of the insured population.

Mr. Willis: The division of contribution, but what about the division of expenditure?

Mr. Browne: We are discussing the contribution. It is on the basis of the insured population, but a final decision will be made by the Government, and I can assure the Committee that, as always, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will ensure that Scotland gets her fair share.

Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question which has been put to him two or three times? Is this sum of money already in the Estimates or, the Government having got it when the Bill receives a Third Reading, does it mean that there will be an extension to the extent of £2·5 million this year in expenditure on the Scottish Health Service; or will that money not be spent but held over in respect of the future of the Service? Can we have a reply?

Question put, That "1 4½" stand part of the Schedule:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 185, Noes 146.

Division No. 109.]
AYES
[8.49 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Fort, R.


Aitken, W. T.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Channon, Sir Henry
Godber, J. B.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Goodhart, Philip


Arbuthnot, John
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Gower, H. R.


Armstrong, C. W.
Cole, Norman
Graham, Sir Fergus


Atkins, H. E.
Cooke, Robert C.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)


Baldwin, A. E.
Cooper, A. E.
Green, A.


Barber, Anthony
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Barter, John
Corfield, Cant. F. V.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Gurden, Harold


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Cunningham, Knox
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Currie, G. B. H.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Bishop, F. P.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)


Body, R. F.
Deedes, W. F.
Hay, John


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Boyle, Sir Edward
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Elliott,R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne.N.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Bryan, P.
Finlay, Graeme
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Burden, F. F. A.
Fisher, Nigel
Hornby, R. P.




Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Russell, R. S.


Horobin, Sir Ian
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Manningham Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Simon, E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Mathew, R.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Maude, Angus
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Hyde, Montgomery
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Mawby, R. L.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Iremonger, T. L.
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Storey, S.


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Keegan, D.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Heave, Airey
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Kerr, H. W.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Kershaw, J. A.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Teeling, W.


Kimball, M.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Temple, John M.


Lagden, G. W.
Oakshott, H. D.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lambert, Hon. G.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Leavey, J. A.
Osborne, C.
Turner, H. F. L.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Page, R. G.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Vane, W. M. F.


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Partridge, E.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Longden, Gilbert
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Pitman, I. J.
Wall, Major Patrick


Lucas, P. B. (Brantford &amp; Chiswick)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Pott, H. P.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


McAdden, S. J.
Powell, J. Enoch
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


McCallum, Major Sir Duncan
Profumo, J. D.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


McKibbin, A. J.
Rawlinson, Peter
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Redmayne, M.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Ridsdale, J. E.



Macmillan, Rt. Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Rippon, A. G. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Mr. Hughes-Young and


Maddan, Martin
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Mr. Brooman-White.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Albu, A. H.
Fienburgh, W.
Mason, Roy


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mellish, R. J.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Mitchison, G. R.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gibson, C. W.
Monslow, W.


Awbery, S. S.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moody, A. S.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Greenwood, Anthony
Moss, R.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Moyle, A.


Benson, G.
Grey, C. F.
Mulley, F. W.


Beswick, Frank Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker Francis (Swindon)


Blackburn, F.




Blenkinsop, A.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
O'Brien, Sir Thomas


Blyton, W. R.
Hale, Leslie
Oliver, G. H.


Boardman, H.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Orem, A. E.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hannan, W.
Orbach, M.


Bowles, F. C.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Owen, W. J.


Brockway, A. F.
Hastings, S.
Paget, R. T.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hayman, F. H.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Burke, W. A.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Pargiter, G. A.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Herbison, Miss M.
Pentland, N.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Holmes, Horace
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Houghton, Douglas
Popplewell, E.


Callaghan, L. J.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Carmichael, J.
Hunter, A. E.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Champion, A. J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliff)
Probert, A. R.


Chapman, W. D.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Proctor, W. T.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Janner, B.
Rankin, John


Coldrick, W.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Collins,V.J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Ross, William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Short, E. W.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Skeffington, A. M.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lawson, G. M.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Deer, G.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Snow, J. W.


Delargy, H. J.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Donnelly, D. L.
MacColl, J. E.
Sparks, J. A.


Dugdale, Rt. John (W. Brmwch)
McGhee, H. G.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Dye, S.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mahon, Simon
Sylvester, G. O.



Mainwaring, W. H.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)



Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)








Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Wheeldon, W. E.
Winterbottom, Richard


Tomney, F.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Woof, R. E.


Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Wilkins, W. A.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Viant, S. P.
Willey, Frederick
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Weitzman, D.
Williams, David (Neath)



Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Williams, Rev. Liywelyn (Ab'tillery)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.


West, D. G.
Willis. Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Schedule agreed to.

Second and Third Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — MAGISTRATES' COURTS BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1.—(PLEA OF GUILTY IN ABSENCE OF ACCUSED.)

NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL

As amended, considered.

Clause 12.—(DISOBEDIENCE OR THREATEN ING SUPERIOR OFFICER.)

9.53 p.m.

Mr. William Wells: I beg to move, in page 4, line 32, to leave out from "officer" to "or" in line 33 and insert:
 (by whatever means communicated to him)".
The Amendment relates to the offence of wilful disobedience to a lawful command. That is an offence punishable by dismissal with disgrace or a term of imprisonment or some lesser sentence. This Amendment was the subject in a modified form of considerable debate in Committee of the whole House. The point involved gave the same difficulty to the Select Committee, and I was glad to notice that the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), the Chairman of the Select Committee, in the course of the Committee stage said that this was a matter which deserved further consideration.
Shortly, the point at issue is this. The Bill as drafted penalises
 Every person subject to this Act who…wilfully disobeys any lawful command of his superior officer, whether given or sent to him personally or not; …
It is to the words, "Whether given or sent to him personally or not", that we on this side of the House have taken some exception.
The Parliamentary Secretary, when replying to that debate, said that this matter would receive further consideration, and on that undertaking I withdrew the Amendment which I had then moved. The Government have honoured this undertaking, and I have been privileged to receive very courteous and extremely erudite letters both from the Parliamentary Secretary and the Civil Lord seeking to justify the retention of those words. In view, however, of subsequent conversations between the Civil Lord and myself, I need only state in the shortest form the reasons why we have at this late stage pursued the Amendment which we moved in Committee, and added to it.
The doubt that we feel about the Clause as it stands is that the words:
•whether given or sent to him personally or not …

may in some way, if not shift the onus of proof of receipt of the order, at any rate make it much easier for the prosecution to prove receipt. There is no difference between the Government and ourselves, and never has been, in what we intended, but the arguments by which the Government, both on the Floor of the House and in the letters which they have addressed to me personally have sought to justify the retention of those words have not convinced me.
I agree that the words "wilfully disobeys" tie the disobedience to the wilfulness, and if the words which we seek to omit are deleted, there could be no doubt at all that in order to bring an officer or a man within the mischief of the Clause it would be necessary for the prosecution to establish not only the fact of disobedience but that it was wilful disobedience of an order which has been received. I am not clear that the words in the Clause as drafted have that effect.
In the course of his answer in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that what the Admiralty really had in mind was to make sure that the modern means of communication of orders, which are now a matter of everyday occurrence, should be capable in a proper case of attracting the same penalties as an order given by the older and more conventional means of dispatch. It seems to us that, if that is what is intended, it is best to use the most explicit words possible to achieve that result. Therefore, the Amendment seeks to delete:
…whether given or sent to him personally or not…
and substitute for that formula:
…by whatever means communicated to him…
I do not think that there is a great risk in the words as they stand, but I think there is a small risk of a very grievous peril. I believe that the words which I wish to substitute remove that peril.
I would only add that the Clause in the nature of the case relates mainly to offences which will be committed in action under all the hazards of active operations. It will probably relate more to officers, or at any rate to warrant officers, than to ordinary ratings—to men who have taken what must be one of the gravest responsibilities that a man can undertake, responsibility for the lives of his fellow men in action. We on this


side think that no safeguard, compatible with the discipline of the armed forces, could be too strict to protect men who have undertaken those responsibilities.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to second the Amendment.

10.0 p.m.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): Although I do not think that the wording of the Clause as it stands is open to the objections to which the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) has referred, I appreciate the reasons which caused him to table the Amendment. As he said, there is really no difference between us. We are both agreed that the offence is that of wilfully disobeying, and that wilfully disobeying depends on the accused having received orders.
However, the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment makes the position perhaps clearer than it was in the original wording. For this reason, the Government are quite willing to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 125.—(CHANNEL ISLANDS AND ISLE OF MAN.)

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 58, line 5, at the end to insert
 or under the laws of the States of Guernsey, entitled the Illegitimacy Laws, 1927 and 1955.
The purpose of the Amendment is to correct a slight error in the Bill and to enable the courts of Guernsey as well as those of the Isle of Man to make use of the special arrangement provided by Clause 101 for serving a process on sailors in affiliation cases. With this explanation, I hope that the House will accept this small, technical Amendment.

Mr. W. Wells: I would only ask whether the Amendment also covers the position in Sark.

Mr. Galbraith: I understand that there are no affiliation cases in any of the other Channel Islands.

Amendment agreed to

10.2 p.m.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We are very glad in the Admiralty that the Naval Discipline Bill should now have reached this stage. We are all of us in this House most grateful to the Select Committee, under the chairmanship of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), for their hard work in preparing the way for the Bill and also for the co-operation which it has received from all parts of the House. Actually, I doubt if any Measure so closely affecting the efficiency of the Navy could ever have become a party matter, but it is, I think, a mark of the Select Committee's outstanding success that the Bill should have proved so uncontroversial.
That is not to say, of course, that we have not had some entertaining debates. I shall always remember with equal gratitude the efforts of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) on behalf of the ancient phraseology of the present Act and the eloquent praise of the Navy by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who I am sorry to see has just left the House.
The Bill will be of the greatest possible benefit to the Navy, and I hope that after its easy passage here it will have a passage equally swift and uneventful in another place.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. W. Wells: I am very grateful to the Civil Lord for his kind words about the Select Committee, of which I was a very insignificant member. I think this Bill has filled a very important gap. It was high time that a new Naval Discipline Bill was introduced and much of the dead wood was cut away. I think that that object has been successfully achieved.
For myself, I cannot pretend that there are not one or two features in the Bill that I would have wished to see rather different. I still think it is a pity that the Bill has a Preamble. Modern Bills do not have Preambles, and this is a modern Bill. If there was a case, perhaps, for preserving the Preamble—

Commander J. W. Maitland: Although this is a modern Bill, it is dealing with a very ancient institution.

Mr. Wells: This House is a very ancient institution, but we should not be discharging our duty if we did not attempt from time to time to bring our Measures up to date.
I was saying that while there is a case, which I appreciate, for keeping the Preamble in its original form, if it were at all realistic to do so, it was realised on all sides that this was not possible. With due deference to the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), I feel that this Preamble is a rather weak and almost flabby substitute for the robust and vigorous language of the Preamble to the former Act. For myself, I would have wished to see the provisions as to public worship more closely safeguarded than they have been.
Having said these things, I must add that I feel that the Bill as a whole is a thoroughly good one. It has been conducted both in the Select Committee upstairs and on the Floor of the House, with the utmost good will on both sides, and I am sure that it has testified to the high honour and esteem in which this House holds, and always will hold, what is the senior of Her Majesty's Services.

10.8 p.m.

Sir Patrick Spens: May I say a word of thanks for what has been said about the work of the Select Committee on this Naval Discipline Bill? Tonight, we are closing another chapter in the history of the disciplinary Acts of all three Services. I hope that this is to be the last chapter in this House on this occasion, and that, as my hon. Friend the Civil Lord hoped, another place will not go out of its way to make Amendments.
The work started rather more than five years ago, when we entered upon the revision of the old Army Act, and each of the three Measures—the two Acts and this Bill—has its own distinctions in certain Sections, having regard to the special circumstances affecting the different Services. In this Bill, there are perhaps more special requirements than in either of the other two, because the difference between service at sea and service on land and in the air is somewhat greater than

that between service in the Army and service in the Royal Air Force.
But, there is running through all three Measures a great chain of similarity, both in regard to offences, punishments and the manner in which they are tried or disposed of. That seemed to me, and I think to Members of the Select Committee, very necessary in these modern times, when so frequently, year by year and month by month, operations are more and more combined operations between the three Services, in which it is absolutely essential that similar offences should be treated, punished and dealt with on similar lines. We hope, therefore —or I hope—that the Bill, like the other two Measures, will prove to be a useful piece of legislation.
It is noteworthy that some of the provisions of the Army Act and the Bill date back about three hundred years at least. We are preserving still, I am glad to say some of the most ancient of the provisions. It has taken us five years to do the whole job, and as the period has come to an end there has been general talk of an integrated defence force. If that comes about in the near future, someone or some Select Committee will have to set to work on an integrated discipline Act for the new defence force. Therefore, I scarcely think that our attempt in this century is likely to last as long as the Army Act and the Naval Discipline Act have lasted up to date. I very willingly hand over that future task to another person or to another Select Committee.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I would detain the House for a few moments to say how much I welcome this effort to revise certain aspects of the Naval Discipline Act, and that undoubtedly we are indebted to the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) and his Committee for the work they put in in revising those Acts for us.
It is not only a matter of the way in which we amend Service Discipline Acts, but also of the administration of those Acts. I should like to have a word privately some time with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because I still have reservations to make about the minor punishments which are imposed


upon naval ratings in particular, as I knew to my cost during the time I was in the Service.
I have come to the conclusion upon reading Clause 6 that I must have been extremely fortunate. I recall that I had been in the Navy only a short time in 1917. I had been drafted to a ship which I think was called the "Diadem" and which was in the harbour at Portsmouth. I went to the engine room to do my first middle watch. I had never been up before between the hours of midnight and four a.m., and so I had not been on the watch very long before I fell asleep. The chief petty officer came along, nudged me in the side and said, "What's the matter, old chap? Can't you keep awake?" I answered. "No." He said, "Walk up and down". I think that is where sailors get the habit of walking up and down. I walked up and down, but when I sat on the rail I again fell asleep. The officer took compassion on me and said that I had better turn in.
I thought I had got off rather lightly until the next day when I saw that I was being punished by being put on a torpedo boat in the Solent to fire it for the rest of the day. I still feel that I was very fortunate when I notice that the term of imprisonment to which I had rendered myself liable was not less than two years. Fortunately for me there must have been some compassion in the heart of the chief petty officer, because I escaped with a very much lighter sentence than that.
I mention this incident to illustrate that it is not only what we put down upon paper that matters but the way these Services are administered. We can only hope that the officers who are responsible for the administration of naval discipline will continue to show the good sense, leniency and understanding that they have shown in the past.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

NAVAL AND MARINE RESERVES PAY BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

ROADS AND RAILWAYS, WALES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: In raising the subject of the advantages of provision of better roads and rail communications in Wales, I am conscious that the benefits of better communications of this kind would be of advantage in all parts of the United Kingdom. If I mention specially the Principality I am sure that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will not think that I am merely indulging in a kind of special pleading, but will appreciate that I am mentioning it because I feel that the industrial development which has taken place, particularly in South Wales, since the last war from the point of view of economic efficiency does merit some increased attention by the Government and his Department and consideration of what can be done.
Since the war, indeed before the war, the amount of money expended on the improvement of our roads is widely recognised to have been rather inadequate. The work done at the peak of the proposed new programme will not really exceed the work done in the best years before the war. Meanwhile, as has been stated recently, the number of vehicles on the roads has more than doubled and the problem has been increased in certain areas and trouble spots to which I shall refer. It has been accentuated by the growth of industrial traffic due to the development of industries in the South Wales area.
Those who represent constituencies in South Wales are pleased that the pre-war depression and unemployment now seem to be things of the past. We are pleased, also, that far from there being a return to those conditions there has been a recognisable development and improvement and increased diversity in our industry. It is with those thoughts in mind that in this short debate I wish to mention a few outstanding problems. I should describe the industrial part of South Wales as a part of the United Kingdom which is in some cases and in some districts almost a boom area. It is an industrial area which also shows every sign of increasing in activity and,


we hope, in prosperity, but it is insufficiently supplied with one of the chief necessities of commerce—an adequate system of communications, particularly by road.
May I first refer to the main entrance into South Wales from Gloucester and from London? As long ago as 1949 a survey of that main road from Gloucester to South Wales revealed that its average width at that time was only about 20 ft. If my hon. Friend has driven along that road he knows how exasperating it can be if one gets into a long stream of traffic and how long the journey may take if one has to follow a line of large industrial trucks and lorries. Visability is so poor, owing to the twists and turns in that road, that anything like good speeds were quite impossible in 1949, and the position has not greatly improved today, despite the valiant efforts of the county councils of Gloucestershire and Monmouthshire.
My hon. Friend is no doubt acquainted with the single-line bridge over the Wye at Chepstow. He realises that that bridge is an anachronism in modern conditions. The difficulty there is accentuated by the hazards of the very steep hill through the town of Chepstow, on which hill there have been one or two very serious accidents recently, and also by the existence of an old archway not more than about 10 ft. in height. That is one of the main entrances into the Principality, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will admit that it is quite inadequate.
I know that I shall probably be told that the only solution is the provision of the subsidiary roads which will feed the projected Severn Bridge. I shall not include any particular reference to the Severn Bridge in these remarks tonight because it is such a big subject that it deserves a special debate, but I do not subscribe to the view that because it is deemed to be impracticable to build the Severn Bridge immediately nothing can be done to improve the existing roads.
The conditions between Gloucester and Chepstow are, of course, rather worse than those between Chepstow and Newport, where the road shows definite improvement. There is, however, a need for a better trunk road between Newport and Swansea. There is a partly completed by-pass, sometimes called the Cardiff by-

pass, of which so far only one part, the Western Avenue, erected before the last war, has been completed.
There is also a need for the completion of a by-pass at Aberavon and possibly at Cowbridge. The order for the Aberavon by-pass was made as long ago as 1949, but the original proposal has been reduced and whittled down to the extent, I understand, that it is to be limited to the western half of the original scheme. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give the House some information about the progress of the necessary preliminary steps before work can proceed with that scheme.
The next need to which I should like to refer is the completion of the proposed northern route out of Cardiff to the area of Merthyr and Pontypridd. My hon. Friend is aware of the existence of the Manor Way, Whitchurch, Cardiff, which was partly erected before the last war. I understand that it is likely that the work may soon proceed. Many people in South Wales are anxious to know how soon.
Then there is the very important need for better road communications between South Wales and the Midlands. This is a tremendous necessity if the South Wales ports are to be able to build up and sustain a new general cargo traffic to take the place of the coal exports which they have lost since the war. In this connection, the three material schemes to which I must refer are the Ross Spur, the project for a heads-of-the-valleys road, and the proposals for a Worcester by-pass.
Of those, the Ross Spur scheme seems most likely to mature within a reasonable time. The Order for the scheme was made in 1954. I recognise that the preliminary steps—the appeals, etc.—must take some time, but I should like to know from my hon. Friend what can be done to speed up those preliminary steps, and how soon he thinks that the work may commence. I heard recently that it is hoped to commence some of the work even this year, and I sincerely hope that that is true.
Then, there is the project for the heads-of-the-valleys road, which is intended to connect Hirwaun with Abergavenny, and Abergavenny with Ross. This can easily be seen, if my hon. Friend glances at


the plans he has, to be just as necessary as the Ross Spur scheme, if there is to be a proper line of communication between the Midlands and the very important industrial area around Swansea, Neath and Aberavon. The needs of the great industrial undertaking at Margam, the factories of South-West Wales and of the oil refinery at Llandarcy, all depend on the early completion of these communications.
Then, in the event of very large developments which are now likely at Milford Haven and in West Wales, there will be an obvious need for far-reaching road improvements in that part of the Principality. Tonight, I can only briefly refer to the long-standing difficulty due to the fact that there is no reasonable communication between North and South Wales. I confess that the economic factors there may be far smaller and less weighty than those to which I have already referred.
In setting the subject of this Adjournment debate, I made some reference to rail communications. I recognise that it is not easy for my hon. Friend to deal adequately with those as well as with the many road schemes to which I have already referred, but if it is at all possible, I should be grateful if he could give some small indication of the extent of the modernisation and dieselisation programmes as they may affect Wales.
Generally, the railway efficiency in Wales seems to have increased. For example, the passenger trains, and indeed the industrial traffic, from Paddington to South Wales seem to be running more promptly and more effectively than some years ago, but there are still one or two black spots. While, for example, the main line passenger trains from London to Cardiff are quick and prompt and run to time, the traveller who wishes to go from Cardiff to West Wales has still an unnecessarily long journey to face.
Similarly, while we welcome the newly-announced train service between Bangor and Cardiff, we still have possibly two of the worst train journeys there are in the United Kingdom. I refer, of course, to the famous train journey between Carmarthen and Aberystwyth. Of that, there is the story of the man travelling on that train who was astounded one night to see a man running parallel with the track. He leaned out of his com-

partment and asked this man to jump into the train and to take the scat alongside him, but the man refused on the ground that he was in a desperate hurry. Another line which is similarly very slow is that of the rail entrance to mid-Wales, the Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth line. I hope that that, too, will be improved in the very near future.
I apologise to my hon. Friend for mentioning so many different and possibly unrelated aspects of the needs of road and rail communications in Wales. If he can give some indications of the proposals to meet only the chief of these needs I for my part shall be extremely grateful.

10.30 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) on his success in the ballot and so being able to raise tonight the subject of transport in Wales, particularly in South Wales. He naturally drew attention to what he regarded as the deficiencies of the transport system, and, therefore, I am sure he will bear with me if I call his attention to some of the work that has been done to improve matters, particularly on A48, the Gloucester to Swansea road.
Our Government—this and the previous Government—have been very conscious of the big development taking place in South Wales and, therefore, of the need which would progressively arise for a better road and rail transport system to meet, so far as we could, the increasing need there. It is not possible, of course, to phase improvements exactly with the need as it arises, but a great deal has been done and a very great deal is going on, as I hope I shall be able to prove to my hon. Friend's satisfaction.
It was in 1953 that the Lloyd Committee was set up to consider just this question, in particular the road needs of South Wales, in the light of the big developments which were known to be impending in both tinplate and steel. The road developments which are taking place today are largely the result of the Report of that Committee.
I would remind my hon. Friend that on the Gloucester-Cardiff-Swansea road, A48, to which he drew attention, saying that various things needed to be done,


a great deal has been done. The first part of the Neath by-pass has been completed and is now in use. That cost £2,200,000. It was a very big scheme indeed. As my hon. Friend will know, it is a most welcome improvement to everybody who travels along that road. It cuts out the detour of about twelve miles through Neath and greatly facilitates traffic movement there. Work on the second part of the Neath by-pass started last March and will complete the link which will carry the traffic from Cardiff to Lonlas and Llanelly from the west end of the Neath by-pass. That will cost another £1¾ million. So there is one big, scheme finished and another big scheme started.
We can also draw attention to the widening of the Neath to Llanelly road between Lonlas and Llansamlet. I am not sure about the pronunciation of that name, but hon. Members will be able to see the name in HANSARD tomorrow and will be able to judge whether I have pronounced it correctly. The work includes the widening of the Wychtree Bridges crossing the River Tawe and the Swansea Canal also. The cost of that will amount to another £400,000. The dual carriageway road from the Earlswood roundabout right into Swansea will cost altogether about £1¼ million. That includes the Jersey Marine Road, which is already complete, and there are two further big schemes to come in the neighbourhood of Swansea, which will greatly facilitate traffic there.
East of Neath, plans are in hand for the improvement of the road through Port Talbot, to which my hon. Friend referred. It is true it was originally intended that there should be a by-pass round the whole of the town, where the road narrows, but that plan has been modified, due to local opinion, which expressed the view that it was against this by-passing of the whole town. It is now proposed to complete the western section only, as my hon. Friend said, and it is proposed that this should be combined with an inner relief road in the town itself, which would, of course, deal with the Aberavon level crossing. I may say that I paid a visit there during the Easter Recess, and I certainly can confirm my hon. Friend's impression that there is an urgent need for something to

be done there to relieve the congestion which is caused.
The position is that a public inquiry has been held on the proposal. We have the report in the Ministry now, and it is being urgently and carefully studied. I cannot, however, tell my hon. Friend what will be the outcome, but I can roundly assure him that we are well aware of the need to improve the main road system there, and it is simply a matter of deciding on what will be the best way to do it.
Further road work is in progress on the A.48 road between Stormy Down and Redhill, Glamorgan, at a cost of approximately £250,000, and on a further stretch to Monmouth, costing some £200,000. This year a further length near Penhow will be improved at a cost of about £300,000.
That adds up to a very substantial improvement on that important stretch of road. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, from my recollection of travelling over it a few years ago, that it is not only a narrow road but a very winding one, carrying an immense volume of traffic, and badly in need of widening and improvement in every way. But a good deal has been done, and a good deal is going on. I ask my hon. Friend to accept that we have shown that we really mean business there.
My hon. Friend's other complaint was about the roads from the South Wales to the Midlands. As regards the A.465 road, the Ross Spur, which is one of the main features in it, it is true that the Order was made in 1954 and that the preliminary work has taken a long time. My hon. Friend asks me why it is taking so long. The answer is one which I think will have his full sympathy. Not only as an upholder of the rights of the individual but also as a lawyer, my hon. Friend will well understand that there must be a very careful balance in these proposals, which inevitably take large pieces of private property, between meeting the needs of the community as a whole for better roads and the rights of the private property owners concerned. Parliament has provided here a statutory procedure which gives an opportunity for objectors to make their objections known, and then, if necessary, for a public inquiry and a consideration of the report, and so on.
The result is that, if we are to continue to follow that process—which I believe, despite its length, is the right one —the preliminary work will inevitably take time, and it will be one or two years before the engineers actually get to work on the working drawings. Especially if there are serious objections, the preliminary work sometimes takes a long time. But we hope that the work on the Ross Spur will start this year. Whatever we can do to expedite it we shall certainly do.
With regard to the rest of that very important road, it is, of course, vital to have a good link not only between the South Wales ports and the Midland cities like Birmingham, Manchester, etc., but also between the great new industries of South Wales and the Midlands. We have further big schemes for the improvement of this road. The main scheme, to which my hon. Friend referred, is the heads-of-the-valleys road, which would improve the road which runs across from Abergavenny through Brynmawr to Hirwaun and through Merthyr Tydvil. That is a very narrow road running across extremely hilly country, and at present it is quite unsuitable for carrying heavy commercial traffic.
We have two big schemes for the improvement of that road. We hope to authorise one of them this year between Abergavenny and Brynmawr. That will cost just under £2 million. Again, there are procedural difficulties. The second stage, going on to Hirwaun, will cost approximately £4½ million and will follow directly after the first stage. Here again, my hon. Friend will see that we mean business.
I could not agree more than I do about the Worcester and Bromsgrove by-pass, having gone through Worcester and Bromsgrove last year on my way to see the charms of Llandudno on the occasion of a conference which was being held there. The congestion in Worcester has to be seen to be believed. Our intention is that both those cities will in due course be by-passed. That will be done by one of the new modern motorways running south from Birmingham to join up with the eastern end of the Ross Spur to complete the through road from Birmingham to the South Wales towns and ports, as well as to Bristol. I can only tell my hon. Friend that that is now being con-

sidered. It is before my right hon. Friend, who is considering what is the earliest date that it can be worked into our future programme.
The Severn Bridge was briefly referred to by my hon. Friend, who will not expect me to go into detail about it tonight. My right hon. Friend the Minister has agreed to it in principle and in due course it will be brought into the programme. It is, however, a very costly scheme. Even with only its local roads the cost will be £15 million, and with all the roads connected with it the cost will go up to £36 million. Naturally, some thought and care are required to see how it can be worked into a programme.
It is true, as my hon. Friend foresaw, that Chepstow's relief will come with that bridge. When the Severn Bridge and the associated roads are built, the heavy traffic through Chepstow will be relieved. Therefore, it would clearly be uneconomic to build a by-pass round Chepstow now. I quite agree with my hon. Friend that Chepstow has a narrow bridge and is a narrow town, and as soon as we can do so we shall relieve it in that way.
I wish to speak briefly about the railways in South Wales. The modernisation of the railways is proceeding, together with these big road schemes. Among the projects approved under the railway modernisation plan is a new marshalling yard at Port Talbot. I inspected the site when I was down there at Easter. The Western Regional Board hopes to be proceeding with it in the very near future. At the Severn Tunnel, the Board intends to extend the sidings on both sides, which will enable the volume of traffic that the Severn Tunnel can carry to be increased.
The Board has a comprehensive scheme to build up line capacity between Pyle West Junction and Britton Ferry, particularly to meet the increased needs of traffic from the developments of the Coal Board and the Steel Company of Wales. The Board hopes to start work on two of these schemes this year and on a third one next year. Two of the schemes will cost about £2 million, and the cost of the other one is not far short of this figure.
I should like to say how very impressed I was by what I saw of the railway installations there and, in travelling with


the railway officials, by the splendid way in which they maintain the high traditions of the old Great Western Railway. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend refer to the successful running of that section of British Railways.
There are improved communications with the Midlands already, in particular in connection with freight. There will be further improvements when the new junctions at Stratford-on-Avon and Fenny Compton are completed. Although they are a long way from South Wales, they are important. They will link what used to be the old Great Western with the old L.M.S. That is part of the modernisation plan.
Diesels will eventually be used universally in the Western Region. They will help particularly in the Severn Tunnel because they will reduce ventilation problems and enable more traffic to go through. Diesel multiple units will be used on the Swansea—Birmingham run, starting 17th June, and diesels will be progressively brought into use in the

rural areas. A new express has been started this year, running daily from Birkenhead to Cardiff, connecting North and South Wales via Shrewsbury, Ruabon and Chester—a foretaste of what is to come as diesel-hydraulics, as they are properly called, are developed in the Western Region.
I hope that I have said enough to reassure my hon. Friend that the Government and all other parties concerned have thought ahead about the industrial needs of South Wales and that we are doing a great deal to improve the transport facilities to enable the great new industries formed there to connect with the rest of the industrial life of the country, to the benefit of themselves and of people in the rest of the country.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour. Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at fourteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.